
Book'lii5lSS_ 



60th Congress, I HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. J Report 

M Session. \ ( No. 543. 



rJ9' 




ALLOWANCES OF CERTAIN CLAIMS REPORTED BY COURT 
OF CLAIMS UNDER BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS. 



January 31, 1908. — Committed to the Committee of the Whole House and ordered 

to he printed. 



Mr. Haskins, from the Commitjbee on War Claims, submitted the 

^ following 

REPORT. 

[To accompany H. R. 15372.] 

The claims embraced in this bill are largely for stores and supplies 
furnished the Army of the United States during the war for the sup- 
pression of the rebellion by loyal citizens residing in the loyal States 
and by loyal citizens residing in States declared in rebellion; claims of 
volunteer officers who served during the civil war for pay for services 
rendered between date of commission and date of muster; also claims 
of churches, colleges, and other eleemosynary societies. These claims 
were referred to the Com't of Clauns for a finding of facts under the 
provisions of the Bowman Act and then returned to Congress by the 
said court with findings of fact in each case. 

During the Fifty-eighth and Fifty-ninth Congresses your committee 
referred a number of claims of officers of the volunteer forces who 
served during the civil war to the Court of Claims for a finding of facts 
under the provisions of the Bo\\mian Act. Harsh and technical 
rulings of the War Department have in many cases worked great 
injustice, and it seemed to your committee that the court was the 
proper tribunal for the initial consideration of the rights of this 
worthy class of clamiants. 

The rule which has been applied by the Treasury Department in 
many of these cases has worked great injustice. The rulings of 
to-day, under existing laws and changed conditions, are much more 
liberal than they were a few years ago, and claims which were then 
rejected are to-day allowed. The accounting officers hold, however, 
that where a claim has been once passed upon it can not be again 
taken up and considered, but stands res adjudicata in their Depart- 
ment. Many of the former rulings of the accounting officers have 
been modified or changed by the decisions of the courts, but those 

'■^ m "([ 



0<\ 



t-4-80 

2 ' ALLOWANCE OF CEETATlSr CLAIMS. -"Tl 533 

officers hold — and 3'our committee do not question the propriety of 
such holding — that even where the courts have decided in the officer's 
favor they can not take up a case which has once been passed upon 
by their predecessors. The result is that in many cases officers of 
the same organization are settled with and paid upon an enthely 
different basis; items of credit allowed to one are denied to the 
other. The injustice of this condition is apparent. 

The following acts of Congress were passed to provide for the psij- 
ment of commissioned officers who had entered upon duty prior to 
muster, but who, under existing orders of the War Department, could 
not be paid for such service, to wit: 

Laws to Provide for the Muster akd Pay of Certain Officers and Enlisted 
Men of the Volunteer Forces. 

[14 Stat. L., p. 368.] 
JOINT RESOLUTION for the relief of certain officers of the Army. 

Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Ihtited States of Amer- 
ica in Congress assembled, That in every case in which a commissioned officer actually- 
entered on duty as such commissioned officer, but by reason of being killed in battle,^ 
capture by the enemy, or other cause beyond his control, and without fault or neglect of 
his own, was not mustered within a period of not less than thirty days, the Pay Depart- 
ment shall allow to such officer full pay and emoluments of his rank from the date on 
which such officer actually entered on such duty as aforesaid, deducting from the 
amount paid in accordance with this resolution all pay actually received by such 
officer for such period. 

Sec. 2. And be it further resolved. That the heirs or legal representatives of any 
officer whose muster into service has been or shall be amended hereby, shall be entitled 
to receive the arrears of pay due such officer or the pension* provided by law for the 
grade into which such officer is mustered under the provisions of the first section ot this 
resolution. 

Approved, July 26, 1866. 

[29 Stat. L., p. 593.] ^ 

AN ACT to provide for the relief of certain officers and enlisted men of the volunteer forces. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of Arnerica 
in Congress assembled, That any person who was duly appointed or commissioned to be 
an officer of the volunteer service during the war of the rebellion, and who was subject 
■^to the mustering regulations at the time applied to members of the volunteer service 
shall be held and considered to have been mustered into the service of the United 
States in the gi-ade named in his appointment or commission from the date from which 
he was to take rank under and by the terms of his said appointment or commission, 
whether the same was actually received by him or not, and shall be entitled to pay, 
emoluments, and pension as if actually mustered at that date: Provided, "That at the 
date from which he was to take rank by the terms of his said appointment or commis- 
sion there was a vacancy to which he could be so appointed or commissioned, and his 
command had either been recruited to the minimum number requu-ed by law and the 
reo-ulations of the War Department, or had been assigned to duty m the field, and that 
he was actually performing the duties of the grade to which he was so appointed or 
commissioned; or if not so performing such duties, then he shall be held and consid- 
ered to have been mustered into service and to be entitled to the benefits of such mus- 
ter from such time after the date of rank given in his commission as he may have actu- 
ally entered upon such duties: Provided further. That any person held as a prisoner of 
war or who may have been absent by reason of wounds, oi m hospital by reason of 
disability received in the service in the line of duty, at the date of issue of his apj)Oint- 
ment or commission, if a vacancy existed for him in the grade to which so appointed 
or commissioned, shall be entitled to all the benefits to which he would have been 
entitled under this act if he had been actually performing the duties of the grade to 
which he was appointed or commissioned at said date: Provuled further, That this act 
shall be construed to apply only in those cases where the commission bears date prior 
to June twentieth, eighteen hundred and sixty-three, or after that date when the com- 
mands of the persons appointed or commissioned were not below the minimum number 
required by then existing laws and regulations: And provided further, That the pay and 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. S 

to allowances actually received for the period covered by the recognition extended under 
tS this act shall be deducted from the sums otherwise to be paid thereunder. 
•o Sec. 2. That the heirs or legal representatives of any person whose muster into 
^ service shall be recognized and established under the terms of this act shall be entitled 
oj to receive the arrears of pay and emoluments due, and the pension, if any, authorized 
Qj by law, for the grade to which recognition shall be so extended. 

Sec. 3. That the pay and allowances of any rank or grade paid to and received by 
any military or naval officer in good faith for services actually performed by such, 
officer in such rank or grade during the war of the rebellion, other than as directed in 
the fourth proviso of the first section of this act, shall not be charged to or recovered 
back from such officer because of any defect in the title of such officer to the office, 
rank, or grade in which such services were so actually performed. 

Sec. 4. That all acts and parts of acts inconsistent with the provisions of this act 
be, and the same are hereby, repealed. 
Approved, February 24, 1897. 

The muster and pay of officers of the vohinteer forces as con- 
sidered by the Court of Claims follows : 

^Vhen one is commissioned as second lieutenant in a volunteer regiment by the 
governor of the State whence the regiment came, and is assigned to duty by the colonel 
■ 'commanding, in a company of which he has been first sergeant, and after applying 
for muster-in and being refused continues to incur all the responsibilities and perform 
all the duties of a commissioned officer, commanding the company in battle, and being 
the only officer attached to it, he is entitled to be paid as such, notwithstanding that 
at the time he was assigned to duty it had fallen below the minimum number entitling 
it to a second lieutenant. (Lieut. Henry's case, p. 162; 6 Ct. Cls.) 

The court further said: 

The court is not unmindful of the learned argument addressed to it by the Assistant 
Attorney-General, but it is also remembered that this suit affects not the claimant alone, 
but a class of citizens who deserve well of their country, and who their country desires 
should receive the full measure of legal justice to which they may be entitled. For 
them there is no appeal to the Supreme Court; for the defendants there is. If this 
suit be decided adversely to the claimant by this court, the decision will be final against 
all of these soldiers. They are men who rose from the ranks by hard fighting and good 
conduct, earning their commissions before they got them, and working for them after 
they came; and it seemg a strange anomaly that six years after the war ended such 
men should be driven to seek the fruits of their promotion in a court of justice. 

The defendants appealed to the .Supreme Court of the United 
States, v/hich court affirmed the action of the Court of Claims. 
(17 Wallace, p. 405, case of United States v. Henry.) 

INCOME TAX DEDUCTED FROM PAY OF OFFICERS. 

The Comptroller of the Treasury rendered a decision on the income 
tax erroneously deducted from pay of officers, to wit : 

Where aright to pay and allowances accrued prior to August 1, 1870, the income 
tax authorized by laws enacted prior to that date is a proper stoppage against such 
pay and allowances, but where the right to collect pay and allowances for services 
rendered prior to August 1, 1870, did not exist until created by a law enacted after 
July 31, 1870, no part of the pay and allowances is taxable. (Decisions of the Comp- 
troller of the Treasm-y, vol. 13, p. 387, December 7, 1906; see also 39 Ct. Cls. R., 
case of Wellington Barry.) 

CLAIMS FOR STORES AND SUPPLIES FURNISHED THE ARMY OF THE 
UNITED STATES DURING THE WAR FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF THE 
REBELLION. 

The act of July 4, 1864 (13 Stat. L., 381), conferred jurisdiction of 
this class of cases upon the Quartermaster and Commissary-General, 
but limited it to claims of loyal citizens arising in States not in rebel- 
lion. After the war closed Congress and its committees were flooded 
with claims of citizens who had remained loyal throughout the war, 



4 ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 

but who had resided in the insurrectionary States. Congressional 
faciHties not being adequate for the proper examination of the vast 
number of claims of tliis character which were presented, the act of 
March 3, 1871, was passed (16 Stat. L., 524). This act created a com- 
mission, known as the "Southern Claims Commission," which was 
given jurisdiction of claims for stores and supplies furnished the 
armies of the United States by loyal citizens residing in States 
declared in rebellion. Thus, until these two acts expired by their own 
limitations, there was a forum in which the cases of loyal citizens 
residing in loyal States, and also of those residing in insurrectionary 
States, might be,, tried and determined. 

Under both acts the findings or reports in each case were reported 
to Congress for appropriation, and w^ere provided for at each ensuing 
session by appropriation bills passed as regularl}^ as au}^ other of the 
general supply bills. These reports or findings were never questioned, 
but were taken as of course and appropriation made accordingly. 

After the expiration of the life of the wSouthern Claims Commission 
and of the act of July 4, 1864, there remained a large number of cases 
in which the citizens felt that the}^ had been aggrieved by the findings 
made, especially upon the question of loyalty. 

The work of both the Commission and the Quartermaster-General 
was largely done through special agents and was ex parte in character. 

In addition to this, the rule of procedure in the Southern Claims 
Commission, which required every claimant whose demand amounted 
to over .$10,000 to appear in person before the Commission, worked 
great hardship. Public sentiment was still disturbed by the passions 
engendered by the war of the rebellion, and many of the reports made 
in these cases, for these and other reasons, were patently unjust to the 
clkimants. 

Congress was again flooded with petitions and bills for relief, and 
on March 3, 1883, passed the act now known as the "Bowman Act," 
and which is as follows : 

[The Bowman Act, 22 Stat. L., p. 485.] 

AN ACT to afford assistance and relief to Congress and the Executive Departments in the investi- 
gation of claims and demands against the Government. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That whenever a claim or matter is pending before any com- 
mittee of the Senate or House of Representatives, or before eitlier House of Congress, 
which involves the investigation and determination of facts, the committee or House 
may cause the same, with the vouchers, papers, proofs, and documents pertaining 
thereto, to be transmitted to the Court of Claims of the United States, and the same 
shall there be proceeded in under such rules as the court may adopt. \^^ien the 
facts shall have been found, the court shall not enter judgment thereon, but shall 
report the same to the committee or to the House by which the case was transmitted 
for its consideration. 

Sec. 2. That when a claim or matter is pending in any of the Executive Depart- 
ments which may involve controverted questions of fact or law the head of such 
Department may transmit the same, with the vouchers, papers, proofs, and docu- 
ments pertaining thereto, to said court, and the same shall be there proceeded in 
under such rules as the court may adopt. When the facts and conclusions of law 
shall have been found, the court shall not- enter judgment thereon, but shall report 
its findings and opinions to the Department by wliich it was transmitted for its guid- 
ance and action. 

Sec. 3. The jurisdiction of said couit shall not extend to or include any claim 
against the United States growing out of the destruction or damage to property by 
the Army or Navy during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, or for the use 
and occupation of real estate by any part of the military or naval forces of the United 
States in tlie operations of said forces during the said war at the seat of war; nor shall 



ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 5 

the said court have jurisdiction of any claim against the United States which is now 
barred by virtue of the provisions of any law of the United States. 

Sec. 4. In any case of a claim for supplies or stores taken by or furnished to any 
part of military or naval forces of the United States for their use during the late war 
for the suppression of the rebellion, the petition shall aver that the person who fur- 
nished such supplies or stores, or from whom such supplies or stores were taken, did 
not give any aid or comfort to said rebellion, but was throughout that war loyal to 
the Government of the United States, and the fact of such loyalty shall be a jurisdic- 
tional fact; and unless the said court shall, on a preliminary inquiry, find that the 
person who furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same were taken as 
aforesaid, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war, the 
court shall not have jurisdiction of such cause, and the same shall, without further 
proceedings, be dismissed. 

Sec. 5. That the Attorney-General, or his assistants, under his direction, shall 
appear for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States in all cases 
which may be transmitted to the Court of Claims under this act, with the same power 
to interpose counterclaims, offsets, defenses for fraud practiced or attempted to be 
practiced by claimants, and other defenses, in like manner as he is now I'equired to 
defend the United States in said court. 

Sec 6. That in the trial of such cases no person shall be excluded as a witness 
because he or she is a party to or interested in the same. 

Sec. 7. That reports of the Court of Claims to Congress under this act, if not finally 
acted upon during the session at which they are reported, shall be continued from 
session to session and from Congress to Congress until the same shall be finally acted 
upon . 

Approved, March 3, 1883. 

The practical effect of tliis act was to transfer the jurisdiction which 
had before been vested in the Southern Claims Commission to the 
Court of Claims. That court was given no broader jurisdiction and 
no greater latitude than its predecessor, but it permitted those who 
felt aggrieved by the findings of the Southern Claims Commission to 
have a rehearing of their case upon reference from the appropriate 
committees of either House of Congress, and it enabled such person 
to have at least the satisfaction of a judicial determination of his 
rights. 

The object of the act, as expressed in the title, is "to afford relief 
to Congress and the Executive Departments in the investigation of 
claims and demands against the Government," and the first section of 
the act expressly devolves upon the Court of Claims " the investigation 
and determination of the facts" of each case, and ''report the same to 
the committee or to the House by which the cause was transmitted for 
its consideration." Thus it appears that it was the express intention 
of Congress, by the enactment of this statute, to relieve its committees 
from the duty and labor of investigating and determining facts, for 
which experience had demonstrated its members had neither the time 
nor facilities, and impose that duty upon a judicial tribunal whose 
judges were trained to such investigation, and before whom each 
party might be represented. Its purpose was to give each side a 
judicial hearing, upon evidence taken by judicial methods, in lieu of 
ex parte determinations upon ex parte testimony. And when the 
facts are thus found by the court why are they not res adjudicata as 
in other cases before the same court ? 

Any other conclusion than tliis nullifies the statute. If, after the 
facts of a case are found in favor of a claimant and reported to Con- 
gress, a committee of either House may contest the findings of the 
court and set them aside, how is Congress afforded relief or its com- 
mittees spared the labor of investigation? No object has been gained 
by the investigation, while the claimant has been put to useless 



6 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

expense and the time and labor of the court has been wasted to no 
practical purpose. And not only this, for if Congress or its com- 
mittees may overrule the findings of the court when in favor of a 
claimant, it may with equal propriety overrule its findings when they 
are against him and in favor of the Government ; and the result will 
be, if this principle is once established, that every case under the 
Bowman Act, however decided by the court, will come back to Con- 
gress, thus restoring the very state of things that the Bowman Act was 
intended to obviate. The only safe and just rule upon this subject 
is that adopted by the Supreme Court, and that is to hold that the 
findings of the Court of Claims ' ' import absolute verity and conclude 
both parties." 

Cases of this character which have been transmitted to the Court 
of Claims have been properly defended by the Attorney-General and 
his assistants, and only a small percentage of the claims tried and dis- 
posed of have received favorable consideration, the sums awarded 
only averaging from 8 to 10 per cent of the sums claimed. The claims 
rejected have been largely so for the reason that the proof of loyalty 
to the United States was not deemed satisfactory, and we entertain 
but little doubt that the same percentage will follow future cases. 

It is true that in the general jurisdiction cases the Court of Claims is 
empowered to render what is technically called a judgment, while in 
Bowman Act cases their power extends only to the finding of facts, 
but in neither instance is Congress inconcluded, and it is within its 
discretion to refuse to pay final judgments of the Court of Claims in 
general jurisdiction cases, even when they are affirmed by the Supreme 
Court. Fortunately, however, for the honor and integrity of the 
Government in its dealings with citizens, Congress has always regarded 
all fuial judgments of its courts as conclusive, and every general defi- 
ciency bill passed since the organization of the Court of Claims in 1863 
has contained large appropriations to meet such judgments. 

The same considerations which make it imperative upon Congress 
to appropriate to pay final judgments of its courts should dictate the 
line of policy to be adopted with regard to findings of fact under the 
Bowman Act. 

It is a general rule of international law, and has been laid down by 
the Supreme Court of the United States in many cases, that a person 
residing in an enemy's country is an enemy so far as his property 
rights are concerned. In modern practice, however, this rule has been 
disregarded when the necessity has arisen for supplying the invading 
army from the surrounding country. Wlien General Scott invaded 
Mexico, he left behind him no unpaid bills for stores and supplies, and 
when Emperor William marched in triumph into the ciij of Paris he 
paid for every pound of produce taken from the French peasantry and 
consumed by his troops. 

Secretary Marcy's letter of instruction to General Taylor as to the 
conduct of the Mexican war contained the following : 

The instructions heretofore given have required you to treat with great kindness 
the people, to respect private property, and to abstain from appropriating it to public 
use without purchase at a fair price. 

This rule of common humanity should apply with greater force to 
the late war of the rebellion, and especially so where it appears that 
those who furnished the supplies were, though living in States in 
insurrection, nevertheless true and loyal to the Federal Government. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIK" CLAIMS. 7 

LACHES. 

The claims commission commonly known' as the ''Southern Claims 
Commission" was established by the act approved March 3, 1871 
(16 Stat. L., 524). Said act provided that the President should 
nominate three commissioners, who should hear and determine the 
claims which might be presented by citizens who had remained loyal 
adherents of the Government of the United States, for stores and 
supplies taken or furnished during the civil war, in States which had 
been proclaimed in insurrection. 

A careful examination of said act shows that 'no provision was 
therein made limiting the time within which claims might be filed 
before said Commission, and no limitation was ever prescribed until 
the enactment of an act which was approved March 3, 1873 (17 Stat. 
L., 577), which act provided — 

That the commissioners of claims shall not receive any petition for the allowance 
of any claim or claims, unless such petition shall be presented to and filed with them 
on or before the 3d day of March, 1873. * * * 

From the above statement of the law it will be observed that the 
act prohibiting the filing of petitions before said Commission went 
into effect the very day it was approved, citizens interested in pre- 
senting their claims before the Commission having no warning what- 
ever that the time for filing their petitions was to cease and terminate 
on March 3, 1873. In other words, said act approved March 3, 1873, 
abrogated the right to file a claim before said Commission from the 
very date of its approval, without a single day's notice. 

It is further noted that said commission was not actually open to 
the filing of claims even for a full period of two years, as the com- 
missioners were not actually appointed and did not enter upon the 
performance of their duties until some time after the approval of 
said act of March 3, 1871, authorizing their appointment. 

As it is apparent that the Government, in terminating without 
warning the right to file old claims before said commission, acted 
without a proper and fair regard for the rights of citizens, who had 
no reason to suppose that the time for filing their claims was to be 
thus abruptly terminated, it would seem to follow that the failure 
of claimants to file their claims before said commission should not be 
deemed as evidence of negligence or laches on their part, but such 
claimants should rather be regarded as the victims of misfortune in 
that their right to present their claims to said commission was termi- 
nated without warning to them. 

It is to be further noted that the first report of said commission, 
made to the Speaker of this House on December 11, 1871, shows 
that the commission had adopted a rule that in all claims for $3,000 
or upwards it was required that all witnesses be brought before the 
commission in Washington City, to give their testimony. Such a 
rule obviously could not be complied with by many claimants by 
reason of the great expense incident to compliance with the rule 
and many claims were therefore abandoned. 

Later said rule was amended by the commission and made appli- 
cable only in claims for 15,000 or more. Congress evidently recog- 
nized the hardship of even that rule, however, and by act approved 
May 11, 1872 (17 Stat. L., 97), provided that testimony must be 
given in person before the commission only in claims for $10,000 or 
more. It would seem from examination of the index of claims filed 



8 ALLOWANCE OP CEETAIE" CLAIMS. 

before said commission, however, that even this rule rendered it 
impossible for a large number of claimants to prosecute their claims 
to a final decision, as the record shows that hundreds were reported 
as "barred" owing to failure to submit proof in support of the 
claims, under the law and rules. 

Your committee has commented at some length upon said "South- 
ern Claims Commission," because that Commission w^as the only 
tribunal which was ever open to the great majorit^^ of citizens whose 
claims arose from the civil war. It is true that the Quartermaster- 
General and Commissary-General, by act approved July 14, 1864 
(13 Stat. L., 381), were given jurisdiction to pass upon the claims 
of citizens of loyal States, and this jurisdiction was extended by 
joint resolutions of June 18, 1866 (14 Stat. L., 360), and of July 28, 
1866 (14 Stat. L., 370) to claims of citizens of the counties of Berkeley 
and Jefferson, W. Va., and to claims of loyal citizens of the State 
of Tennessee; but as compared with the whole number of 
claims of loyal citizens of the Southern States, the number which 
could have been filed before the Quartermaster-General and Com- 
missary-General is so small as to be of comparativel}^ very little 
importance. 

Some claims embraced in the bill which your committee has pre- 
pared and reported were not presented to said Claims Commission, 
to the Quartermaster-General, or Commissary-General; but in view 
of the law and facts above set forth, and of the further fact, apparent 
from a painstaking examination of the proceedings of Congress, that 
all claims arising from the civil war will shortly be disposed of, it is 
submitted by your committee that the failure of claimants to present 
their claims to said Commission, or to the Quartermaster-General, 
or Commissary-General (in the very limited number of instances 
where presentation to said officers was possible) should not be now 
held to preclude these claimants from receiving the compensation 
which has been found due them, after judicial inquiry, by the Court 
of Claims. 

A large number of claims embraced in the bill prepared and reported 
by the committee were presented to said Commission and rejected, 
and now^, after a full and fair trial before the Court of Clauns, it has 
been judicially decided that the claims are just and that the United 
States is indebted to the claimants in the sums found b}^ the Court of 
Claims. Some claims were rejected by the Claims Commission under 
an erroneous theory of the law; the Commission refused to entertain 
the claims of persons who had been declared banla'upt ; it declined to 
hear the claims of corporations or of such quasi corporations as 
churches, or lodges, and narrowed its own jurisdiction so far as pos- 
sible. Other claims were rejected by said Commission upon ex parte 
reports and affidavits, made or taken b}^ agents, without permitting 
the claimants to be present or represented. Since these claims have 
been referred to the Court of Claims, however, the hearings and trials 
have been in accordance with established forms of judicial procedure, 
the United States as well as the claimants being represented by 
counsel. Many claims have been found by the Court of Claims to be 
wanting in some element and haA^e been dismissed, and the claims 
embraced in the bill prepared by your committee have been pro- 
nounced just after this judicial scrutiny and after full and fan* trials, 
such as to obviate any possible question as to their being thp proper 
subject of payment by the Government. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 9 

CLAIMS OF CHURCHES, LODGES, ETC. 

Certain claims of churches, educational institutions, and elee- 
mosynary societies are embraced in the bill prepared by your com- 
mittee. These claims are for occupation of buildings, with incidental 
damages amounting in some instances to destruction of the buildings. 

While it has not been so reported by the Court of Claims, it is 
nevertheless a fact that these claims are of such a character as pre- 
cluded their successful prosecution before any officer or tribunal of 
the Government, and the onl}' recourse of these claimants was to 
pray Congress for relief in the premises by introduction of bills, 
which were referred to the Court of Claims for findings of fact. 

Some claims for what were termed "stores and supplies" might 
have been prosecuted before the Quartermaster-General and Com- 
missary-General, as mentioned elsewhere in this report, but it is to be 
noted that the jurisdiction of those officers was confuied to the claims 
of citizens of States not declared in insurrection, by the terms of the 
act approved July 4, 1864, with the exception of claims arising m the 
States of Tennessee and West Virginia, but these claims for occupation 
of buildings, etc., were rejected by the Quartermaster-General when- 
ever presented, whether from loyal States or from States which had 
been declared in insurrection. This clearly appears from the letter 
of the Secretary of War, dated April 8, 1890, and set forth in this 
report, with the accompanjnng papers. 

Aside from the Quartermaster-General and Commissary-General 
no officers or tribunal of the Government had jurisdiction of what 
are commonly termed "war claims" of citizens save the Southern 
Claims Commission before mentioned in this report. That Commis- 
sion, however, took the view that while its jurisdiction extended to 
certain classes of claims of loyal citizens of insurrectionary States, 
yet it could not take cognizance of claims of associations of citizens, 
such as churches, and that if the churches were considered as being 
corporations or quasi corporations they then could not be considered, 
on the theory that a corporation could not be deemed a citizen of the 
United States within the intendment of the act establishing such 
Commission. Without commenting upon the correctness of such 
holdings by said Commission, they are here mentioned for the pur- 
pose of showing why such claims as these were not prosecuted 
before that Commission. 

Eeference is made to the report of said Commission found on page 
381 of the consolidated reports for the years 1871, 1873, 1874, in the 
claim of the Indiana Methodist Church, of Portsmouth, Va., in which 
it was stated by the Commission: 

This claim is for and on belialf of a corporation. After full consideration and con- 
sultation we have heretofore decided that a corporation has no standing before this 
Commission. It can not prove "loyalty" and is not a "citizen." The claun is there- 
fore disallowed. 

Reference is also made to the report oi said commission found on 
pages 534-535 of said consolidated reports, in the case of the Calhoun 
Presbyterian Church, of Charleston, Tenn., in which the commission 
said : 

We have no jurisdiction over claims of such associations, and therefore must reject 
the claim. 



10 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

From all the foregoing it is seen that no legal remedy was ever open 
to these claimants, and they were forced to present their claims directly 
to Congress in the first instance. 

The inclusion of these claims in the bill is in accordance with the 
most cases, the reasonable rental value during the occupation of a 
long-continued practice of Congress, and each claim represents, in 
building or the reasonable value of the building at time of authorized 
destruction otherwise than in actual military operations. This prac- 
tice and the general rules of decision in war claims are succinctly 
stated in the opinion of the Court of Claims in case of Presbyterian 
Church at Murfreesboro v. United States (33 Court of Claims report, 
339, 340, 431), as follows: 

The invariable rule which has governed the court in this class of cases — that is, 
cases for war damages — is this: 

The court allows only for property taken to be used, and only for the value to the 
Government of the thing taken. That is to say, the court has never allowed for prop- 
erty taken to be destroyed, or for the damages which the owner suffered by reason of 
the taking. Where houses were torn down and trees felled for military reasons, noth- 
ing has been allowed. Where fruit trees and shade trees and fences were taken for 
fuel, the owner has been allowed only for so much cord wood. Where a building was 
torn down and the material used, the allowance has been for so much old brick and 
second-hand lumber. Where a blooded stallion was taken for army vise, the allow- 
ance has been simply for a cavalry horse. "Where an imported cow was killed and 
eaten by the troops, the allowance has been only for so much beef. Where the property 
taken was of a kind which could not properly be regarded as quartermaster or com- 
missary stores, or as hospital supplies, or engineer's material, the taking has been 
regarded as due to the depredations of individuals, and nothing has been allowed. 
In a word, the general principle which governs the court is that the amounts allowed 
are to be only to the extent of the benefit which the Government received by the 
taking, not for the injury which the owner suffered. 

The present case, in finding the value of the building, may seem a departure from 
the rule which has hitherto governed the court — the first and only exception out of 
the hundreds of cases of war claims which have been tried and disposed of in the 
course of the last fifteen years. The reason for this departure from a well-settled rule 
is this: The pi'oceeding in cases coming into this court under the Bowman Act is not 
to obtain a judgment fixing with finality the legal rights and liabilities of the parties, 
but simply a proceeding to procure for Congress authenticated information necessary 
for them to possess in matters coming before them for legislative action. It is conse- 
quently the duty of the court to ascertain and certify to Congress such facts as will 
be available and useful when the question of legislative relief shall come before the 
two houses. 

In cases of religious and charitable institutions and institutions of learning Congress 
has in repeated instances laid down a different rule than tha.t hereinbefore adverted to 
as the rule of this court for what may be termed the measure of damages. In other 
words, whenever Congress has given relief for the destruction of such a building, the 
legislative rule in repeated instances has invariably been to allow for the value of the 
building, as a V)uilding. The case before us is a case of that description. The court 
accordingly finds the value of the building as it stood when the military authorities 
took possession of it . Whether the owners are entitled or not entitled to that or to any 
relief is not a question before the court. It rests entirely within legislative discretion. 

The letter of the Secretary of War, above mentioned, and the accom- 
panying papers showing disposition made of many church claims, are 
as follows : 

claims for trse op church and school buildings, etc. 

Committee on War Claims, Hox"se op Representatives, 

Washington, D. C, Aprils, 1890. 

Dear Sir : Some time since I requested the Quartermaster-General to have prepared 

for me, for the use of the Committee on War Claims, a statement showing the claims 

filed in his oflice for the use, occupation, and damages to church property resulting 

from use and occupation by the United States Army during the late war, and indicating 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 11 

the claims allowed by tlie Quartermaster-General and paid by the Government. That 
information with the letter of the Quartermaster-General transmitting it to the Secre- 
tary of War is in my possession, delivered by a messenger from the War Department, 
but I do not find any letter from the Secretary of War transmitting it. Will you please 
have examination made and if not transmitted with the usual letter have such letter 
written. If the letter of transmission was forwarded please to have a copy sent to me 
by the bearer. 

Very respectfully, B. A. Enloe, M. C. 

Hon. Redpield Proctor, 

Secretary of War. 



War Department, 
Washington, April 9, 1890. 
Sir: I have the honor to return the report of the Quartermaster-General on H. R. 
5169 and 7009, returned to me with your letter of this date, in which you state that 
you do not find any letter of transmittal from this Department. 

In reply I beg to invite your attention to the inclosed copy of my letter, dated the 
3d instant, to Hon. O. B. Thomas, chairman of the House Committee on War Claims, 
transmitting to him General Holabird's report, in response to his oral request therefor. 
Very respectfully, 

Redfield Proctor, 
, Secretary of War. 

Hon. B. A. Enloe, 

House of Representatives. 



War Department, 
Washington, Apri,l 3, 1890. 
Sir: In compliance with your oral request, I have the honor to tran.smit herewith 
a report from the Quartermaster-General, dated the 28th ultimo, on House bills Nos. 
5169 and 7009 (copies inclosed), providing for payment of claims for the use and 
occupation of church and school buildings and grounds by the Government during 
the late war, together with a list of church claims filed in the office of the Quarter- 
master-General which have been paid in whole or in part, and a list of such claims 
which have been rejected or not paid. 

Very respectfully, Redfield Proctor, 

Secretary of War. 
Hon. O. B. Thomas, 

Chairman Committee on War Clmms, House of Representatives. 

p '=' War Department, Quartermaster-General's Office, 

Washington, D. C, March 28, 1890. 

Sir: I have the honor to return herewith H. R. 5169 and H. R. 7009, providing for 
payment of claims for the use and occupation of churches, school-buildings, etc. 

A list of the church claims which have been filed in this ofl&ce is herewith submitted, 
giving the name, locality, and amount of each claim (so far as stated) and the action 
taken thereon. It appears that 234 of these claims have been filed. Ninety-seven of 
these, aggregating $102,270.29 (so far as stated), have been paid or recommended for 
payment, in whole or part, and 137 claims, aggregating (so far as stated) 1247,797.38, 
have been disallowed or not paid, the cause of disallowance being stated on the accom- 
panying list. 

In the consideration of these claims it was found that a considerable number were 
presented from States and districts declared to be in insurrection during the war of 
the rebellion. They were precluded from favorable consideration by the President's 
proclamation of July 1, 1862, and by subsequent legislation of Congress. (See act of 
Congress, Public No. 33, of 1867.) 

It was the custom of this Department to place churches in the same condition as 
when they were taken possession of by the United States, natural wear and tear 
excepted, or allow a reasonable amount in money in lieu of such repairs. No general 
instruction for the payment of such claims appears to have been given, but each claim 
was decided on its merits. This practice, however, had the approval of the Secretary 
of War, as such cases were submitted to and approved by him from time to time. Up 
to 1874 it was uniformly held by this office that no rent should be paid for churches, 
there being no law authorizing such payment. On March 20, 1874, the claim of Trinity 
Protestant Episcopal Church, of Washington, D. C, for rent, stated at |2,250, was 
referred to the Third Auditor of the Treasury for settlement, having been recom- 
mended by Assistant Judge-Advocate-General Dunn and approved by the Secretary 



12 ALLOWAlSrCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 

of War. A number of other claims for rent of churches were paid subsequently by the 
direction and approval of the Secretary of War. 

Veiy respectfully, ■ S. B. Holabird, 

Quartermaster-General TJ. S. Army. 
The Secretary of War. 

* 'stores and supplies," as construed by the commissioners of 

CLAIMS. 

"When buildings are torn down, if the materials are taken to erect 
other buildings for the use of the Army, such materials thereby become 
supphes, and their value, as materials for the purpose for which they are 
used, is paid to the owner. It is a very inadequate compensation to 
him. But this rule, which allows only for the materials as supphes, 
and notliing for damage to the building from which they are obtained, 
has been acted upon uniformly for many years, and is regarded as an 
estabhshed usage not to be departed from. So where fields of grass 
or growing crops are partly trampled down and destroyed, and partly 
used for forage or pasturage, the latter is paid for, but the former is 
not. In such cases we have found greater difficulty in determining 
how much is destroyed and how much taken for army use. It 
would have been difficult at the time; how much more so after the 
lapse of many years ? 

' 'Nothing in the act of March 3, 1871, authorizes us to allow claims 
for the damage or destruction of property; and in allowing for sup- 
plies we follow the long-settled rules of the Quartermaster's Depart- 
ment. Bj adopting tliis rule the claims of loyal citizens North and 
South are treated alike." 

LOYALTY, 

WHAT CONSTITUTES PROOF OF LOYALTY, AS COMMENTED ON OR CONSTRUED BY THE 

i^COURTS. 

b In Eeils v. The United States (3 C. Cls. K., 61) that com't held that 
repeated acts of kindness to Union prisoners, and assisting them to 
escape, accompanied with negative evidence, is good proof of loyalty 
under the captured and abandoned property act. 

In Graver v. The United States (3 ib., 83) it was held that conceal- 
ing, feeding, and clothing an escaped prisoner, from October till Feb- 
ruary, was satisfactory evidence that the claimant never gave aid or 
comfort to the rebellion. 

In Miss Edmons' case (3 ib., 179) it was decided that previous resi- 
dence at the North, professional business in Charleston, her sex. her 
legal associations, and her prompt return to her northern home at the 
end of the war were satisfactor}^ proofs of her loyalty, 

In Clark's case (3 ib., 228) the certificate of a major-general of the 
Union Army to the loyalty of the claimant, supported by his owii 
oath, was held sufficient to prove his loyalty. 

In Ijynch's case (3 ib., 392) it was decided that joining, but not 
serving in a home guard, with intent to escape conscription, was not 
giving aid or comfort to the rebellion. 

In Grossmeyer's case (4 ib,, 1) that court held that — 

offices and acts of affection and humanity rendered to individuals engaged in the 
rebellion, taxes paid where the rebel authority held sway, contributions levied and 
payment extorted by the presence of a power and force that could compel submission, 
are not willful breaches of allegiance and duty, and therefore do not come within the 
letter, the reason, the spirit, or purpose of the confiscation act July 17, 18(52, nor of the 
abandoned or captured property act of March 12, 1863. These laws are penal and do 
not intend to j)unish other than willful transgression. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 13 

In Miller & Fillow's case (4 ib., 288) it was decided that 'involun- 
tary patrol duty in the Home Guard of Mobile, not military but in the 
nature of police duty, is not aid or comfort to the rebellion in one 
otherwise shown to be loyal within the meaning of the captured and 
abandoned property act." 

In Padelford's case (4 ib., 317) that court held that "to subscribe 
to a Confederate loan unwillingly, under threats, and in fear of vio- 
lence to person and property, though in the absence of direct com- 
pulsion or of immediate danger, holding, moreover, the stock sub- 
scribed for but a fortnight, is not aid or comfort to the rebellion in 
one who otherwise consistently opposes it in sentiment, speech, and 
action, within the meaning of the abandoned and captured property 
act." 

In Ealer's case (4 ib., 372) it was held that where a claimant under 
the abandoned and captured property act shows that his residence 
within the insurrectionary States during a part of the rebellion was 
involuntarv, and establishes his loyalty for the remainder, a pre- 
sumption exists in favor of his loyalty during his involuntary^ resi- 
dence. 

In the case of Quinby (4 ib., 417) that court decided three impor- 
tant points under tliis act of March 12, 1863, as follows: 

For a citizen of unquestionable loyalty, resident through the rebel- 
lion in an insurrectionar}^ State, who had been thrown into jail for 
refusing to bear arms against the United States, and who is threat- 
ened to be forced into the rebel army: (1) To serve in an organiza- 
tion intended for police purposes, and regarded by loyal persons as 
a resort for evading military service, and which is liable to be called 
into militar}^ service, and which does relieve the military of provost 
guard duty; (2) or to unite with others in running a vessel through 
the blockade, the purpose being to convey property bej^ond the 
control of the Confederate authorities, mth the expectation that 
the vessel will not return; and (3) to import through the blockade 
and pay duties to the Confederate custom-house upon merchandise 
not designed for general traffic, but to be used equally in the United 
States prisoners' hospital, in his own family, and in trade among 
loyal friends, is not, in either case, to give aid and comfort to the 
rebellion. 

In Ayer's case (4 ib., 422), it was held, that acts not committed 
with the mind and intention of giving aid and comfort to the rebellion, 
or to persons engaged therein, but under the apprehension and fear 
of danger to the person and property of a claimant, do not bar his 
right to recover}^ under the captured and abandoned property act. 

In the case of Hay den (4 ib., 475), it was held that — 

A loyal person surrounded by contending armies is not bound to abandon bis family, 
and removing to a retired place of safety, tbougb witbin tbe Confederate lines, is not 
aid and comfort to tbe rebellion. 

In Wilson's case (4 ib., 560), it was decided that there being no 
proof of the loyaltj^ of the distributees of an estate of an intestate who 
was loyal, the administrator is not thereby barred from recovery 
under the captured and abandoned property act. 

In Knee's case (4 ib., 583), it was held that a claimant who leaves his 
home and hides in the country two years to avoid conscription, and 
who, through much suffering, avoids the rebel military service, will 
not be held to show a complete record of all his acts during the re- 
bellion; nor that he consorted with and was known to the Union men 



14 AliLOWAJSrCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

of Charleston, as would one who resided constantly there during the 
rebellion and made little effort to aA^oid military service. 

In Foster's case (5 ib., 412), it was decided that where a citizen of a 
loyal State takes horses from Kansas to Mobile, Ala., to sell shortlj' 
before the beginning of the rebellion, and, being unable to sell them 
until after the breaking out of the war, remained to dispose of them, 
and is subsequently prevented from returning to Kansas b}^ the Con- 
federate authorities, and sells his horses and invests the avails in 
cotton, continuing loyal through the war, the transaction was not in 
violation of the nonintercourse act, July 13, 1861 , and that to remain in 
an insurrectionary State under such circumstances was not an act of 
aid and comfort to the rebellion. 

In Koester's case (5 ib., 642) it was held that where one residing 
within an insurrectionary district enters a Confederate arsenal as a 
workman, his business being that of a shopkeeper, solely to avoid 
conscription, and while there evades serving as far as possible, receiv- 
ing no pay, and, in fact, paying for the appointment, it will be regarded 
as involuntary aid, if his loyalty otherwise be fully established. 

In Prince's case (5 ib., 706) it was held that where a citizen enter- 
taining loyal sentiments was guilty of no act of hostility to the United 
States, but yielded passive obedience to the government de facto in 
civil and local matters, his loyalty is established within the meaning 
of the abandoned and captured property act. 

In Wy lie's case (6 ib., 295) that court specifies the evidence requi- 
site to establish loyalty, as : (1) proof of voluntary residence in a loyal 
State; (2) proof of involuntary residence within an insurrectionary 
district, and (3) proof that the party has never given aid or comfort 
to the rebellion, and has consistently adhered to the United States; 
and the nature and requisites of this proof are stated. 

In Nugent's case (6 ib., 305) it was held that the name T. Nugent, 
jr., is not identical with Terence Nugent, jr., and where the defendant 
fails to connect the latter person with an election for president of the 
Confederate government by any other evidence than a poll list bear- 
ing the former name, and the claimant satisfactorily proves his con- 
sistent adherence to the United States, the doubt of identity should 
be adjudged in his favor. 

In the case of Alfred R. Carter v. The United States (23 C. Cls., p. 
326) it was held that — 

Loyalty during the entire period of the war is jurisdictional in certain cases under the 
Bowman Act, though the property was taken after the cessation of hostilities. 

In the case of Mrs. Belle Osborne, executrix, v. The United States 
(24 C. Cls., p. 416) it was held that— 

The jurisdictional restriction of the statute, the loyalty of the claimant, is strictly 
personal ; it simply forbids the party to speak or the court to listen until it be primarily 
established that he was an adherent and not an enemy. 

The voluntary continuance of a prior partnership to carry on an innocent business 
after the beginning of hostilities did not make one partner disloyal because the other 
was. 

In a Congressional case a loyal partner is possessed of a right or equity in property 
taken for the use of the Army and entitled to have the facts found. 

In the case of James C. Newman, administrator, v. The United 
States (21 C. Cls., p. 205) it was held that— 

The individual whose loyalty must be proved in a Congressional case is the adminis- 
trator in possession of the stores or supplies at the time of seizure, and not the widow, 
next of kin, or creditors of an estate. 



ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 15 

LOTALTY AS DEFINED BY THE SUPREME COURT. 

That a citizen yielding passive obedience to the Confederate gov- 
ernment is not proof of disloyalty. (Price v. United States, 5 N. 
and H., 706.) 

The presumption of disloyalty does not attach to a citizen of a 
loyal State who was temporaril}'' at the South at the outbreak of the 
rebellion, and being aged, infirm, and poor, was unable to escape. 
(Spain V. United States, 5 N. and H., 598.) 

The violation of a statute intended for the suppession of the rebel- 
lion was in itself an act of ''aid and comfort" within the meaning 
of the statute. (Gearing v. United States, 3 N. and H., 165.) 

So was the fitting out of a vessel in a rebel port and running the 
blockade maintained by the United States. (Ibid.) 

It is sufficient for a corporate body to show that it was incorpo- 
rated for a lawful purpose and that it never applied any part of its 
funds to aid the rebelhon. (Hebrew Congregation v. United States, 
6 N. and H., 241.) 

The disloyalty of the administrator of a loyal intestate is no bar to 
a recovery. (Wilson v. United States, 4 N. and H., 559.) 

A trustee need not make proof of his own loyalty, but he must 
prove that of his cestui que trust. (Stoddart v. United States, 6 N. 
and H., 340.) 

If one of the members of a firm gave aid and comfort to the rebellion 
there can be no recovery by them. (Schreiner v. United States, 6 
N. and H., 359.) 

Where one joint owner proves his loyalty and the other fails to do 
so judgment will be rendered in favor of the former, to the extent of 
his interest in the fimd. (Meldrim v. United States, 7 N. and H., 595.) 

Under the act of 18G3 it is not necessary that the claimant, who had 
purchased in good faith, should prove the loyalty of the persons from 
whom he bought the property. (United States v. Anderson, 9 Wal- 
lace, 56.) 

Where property purchased was in immediate peril by capture, the 
proceeds thereof can not be recovered under the act of 1863. (Gerst- 
mann v. United States, 3 N. and H., 233; McElhose v. United States, 
ibid., 240.) 

Under the captured and abandoned property act the loyalty of the 
distributers of the estate can not be put in issue. (Aubert v. United 
States, 3 N. and H., 84.) 

Where a claimant was found loyal by an officer charged with the 
duty of ascertaining that fact, and Congress gave effect to his award, 
the facts constitute a prima facie case of loyalty. (Hall's Case, 27 C. 
Cls. R., p. 438.) 

CORPORATIONS, LOYALTY OF. 

In the case of the United States v. Insurance Companies, reported in 
22 Wall., page 99, which was a suit brought against the United States 
by two msurance companies incorporated by the legislature of 
Georgia in 1861 and 1863, and while the State was in armed rebelHon 
against the Government, the court held that corporations created by 
the legislature of a State while it was in armed rebellion against the 
Government have power, since the suppression of the rebellion, to sue 
in the Federal courts, if the acts of incorporation had no relation to 
anything else than the domestic concerns of the State, and they were 
neither in their apparent purpose nor in their operation hostile to the 



16 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS, 

Union or in conflict with the Constitution; but were mere ordinary- 
legislation, such as might have been had had there been no war or no 
attempted secession, and such as is of yearly occurrence in all the 
States. Such corporations may in proper cases sue under the cap- 
tured and abandoned property act. 

The act, 2d March, 1867 (Rev. Stat., sec. 3480), expressly pro- 
hibits the executive officers from paying claims which existed prior to 
the war in favor of persons who promoted or encouraged the late 
rebellion; and, by implication, prohibits them from paying claims 
which originated after the war began. (Chesapeake and Ohio R. R.. 
Co., 20 Ct. Cls., R., p. 49.) 

A corporation controlled by the enemy, located and operated 
within his jurisdic^tion and employed in carrying on the war, must be 
regarded, so far as its contracting power is concerned, as a person 
who promoted, encouraged, and sustained the rebellion. 

Ibid (note by the compiler) : Since the decision by the Supreme Court in the Home 
Insm-ance Company's case (22 Wallace, p. 99) it has been deemed absolutely settled 
that corporations in the Southern States may and must make proof that they have 
never given aid or comfort to the rebellion, precisely as natural persons may be re- 
quired to. Neither the Supreme Court nor the Court of Claims has ever made any 
distinction in this particular between natural and artificial persons; what the one has 
to prove the other has to prove. 

When the owner of captured or abandoned property dies subse- 
quent to the capture, the only questions for the court to determine 
imder the ''Captured and abandoned property act" (12 Stat. L., 
p. 820) are the title and the loyalty of the decedent. The title is 
continued by the Administration, and the loyalty of the distributees 
of the estate can not be put in issue. (3 Ct. Cls. The Aubert 
case, p. 84.) 

BUSINESS OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

Up to the present time there have been referred to the Court of 
Claims by Congress for a finding of facts 13,171 cases, of which there 
are now pending 2,017. A large proportion of these cases will never 
be brought to trial, because of the inability of the claimants to prove 
loyalty throughout the civil war. 

It is a fair presumption that the attorneys who represent these 
claims have during the past years selected and culled out those cases 
which were most easily proved up, leaving the snags and difficult cases 
for the last, and after the original claimant has been found loyal it 
is at tliis late day in many cases cUfficult, if not impossible, to make 
proof upon the merits. 

In view of this the Department of Justice has adopted the policy 
of moving, under rule 93 of the Court of Claims, for the dismissal of 
cases in which no steps have been taken for a considerable length of 
time, and many such are being rapidly and finally disposed of, with 
the consent of the claimant's attorney. 

Prior to the Fifty-first Congress, claims arising under the Bowman 
Act aggregating $128,138.73 were appropriated for. The first gen- 
eral act for the pajmient of this class of cases was passed in the Fifty- 
first Congress; other similar acts were passed in the Fiftj'^-fifth, Fiftj^- 
seventh, and Fifty-eighth Congresses. The amounts appropriated 
were as follows : 

Fiftv-first Congress $573, 763. 30 

Fifty-fifth Congress 1, 722, 655. 79 

Fifty-seventh Congress 444, 503. 10 

Fifty-eighth Congress 1. 197, 272. 60 



ALLOWANCE OF CEETAHST CLAIMS. 



17 



During the Fifty-second, Fifty-third, and Fiftj^-fourth Congresses 
various private acts were passed upon findings of fact made by the 
Court of Claims in this class of cases, aggregating $75,003.96. Total 
of $4,216,331.44. 

Your committee believe and so report that the business of the Court 
of Claims arising under the Bowman Act is steadily and rapidly 
decreasing, not only from the fact that very few references under that 
act are now being made by jout committee, but from the further 
fact, as before cited in this report, that the best cases not only as to 
proof, but the largest in amount, have been disposed of b}^ that 
tribunal and appropriated for by Congress. It is safe to calculate 
that in the future Congress will be called upon to make steadily 
decreasing appropriations in this class of cases. 

The claims recommended for appropriation by this bill amount to 
$315,545.28. Your committee attach hereto a detailed report of 
claims hj States, and for the information of the House they also have 
had printed as an appendix to their report the findings of the Court 
of Claims in each case 

Your committee recommend that the bill do Dass. 



Claims by States. 






, 


States. 


For stores 
and sup- 
plies. 


For offi- 
cers' pay. 


For 
churches, 
colleges, 

etc. 


Total. 




$21,604.00 
22,802.67 


! 


$21,604.00 
22,802.67 








$1,842.69 
552.79 
412.19 
6.36.22 
106.21 




1,842.69 
552.79 















412.19 








636.22 


Florida . 


4,300.00 

15,508.00 

4,000.00 




4,406.21 
15,508.00 
8,813.97 
4,023.97 








4,813.97 
4,023.97 
2,456.08 
1,362.91 
3,341.95 














2,456.08 








1,362.91 




3,977.00 
21,123.00 


.S4,255.00 


11,573.95 




21,123.00 




1,074.26 




1,074.26 




12,224.00 




12,224.00 




2,328.72 

1,055.57 

556. 10 




2,328.72 








1,055.57 
556. 10 










29, 420. 00 
14, 497. 00 




29, 420. 00 




2,802.71 

53.23 

554. 07 

40.33 

20.39 

632. 18 

2, 222. 47 




17,299.71 
53.23 












554. 07 








40.33 








20.39 




2, .525. 00 




3, 157. 18 






2, 222. 47 




1,202.00 




1,202.00 




260.35 

2,163.10 

626.48 

417. 31 

1,388.81 




260. 35 


Ohio 






2, 163. 10 








626. 48 








417.31 




1,771.00 




3,159.81 
983. 33 


South Carolina . 


983.33 






391.31 
43.33 


391.31 


Tfinnfissftp, 


66,958.00 
1, 140. 00 

24,950.75 
7, 434. GO 


12, 735. 00 


79, 736. 33 


Texas 


1,140.00 


Virginia ... . . 


92.64 


2,330.00 
895.00 


27, 373. 39 




8, 329. 00 


Washington . . . 


115.41 
522. 78 


115.41 








522.78 










Total 


255,436.42 


36,910.53 


21,198.33 


315, 545. 28 






H. Kep. 543, 60-1 2 











APPENDIX. 

ALABAMA. 
WILLIAM T. HAMNER. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 5752. William T. Hamner v. The United States.] 

This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or 
furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war 
for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that 
William T. Hamner, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or 
from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Gov-ermnent 
of the United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed November 13, 1905. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 5752. William T. Hamner v. The United States.] 
STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or fm-nished to the military forces of the L^nited States for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted to the coiut by the 
Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 6th day of August, 
1888. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 13th day of November, 1905, 
found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom 
they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United 
States thi'oughout said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 18th day of December, 1906. 

George A. & William B. King, esqs., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by Charles F. Kincheloe, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, 
appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

That the following property belonging to him was taken fi-om him by the United 
States Army and used by the said Army, to wit, the forces under the command of 
General Croxton, on or about the 3d and 4th of April, 1865, viz: 

1 yoke of oxen $75 

2 horses 300 

2 mules 300 

500 bushels of corn 500 

4,000 pounds of fodder 80 

1,000 pounds of bacon 200 

200 pounds of lard 40 

600 pounds of flour ' 36 

200 pounds of sugar 50 

Total 1 , 581 

The comt, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDING OF FACT. 

During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United 
States, by proper authority for military pm-poses, took possession of and used property 
as above described belonging to claimant, which was then and there reasonably worth 
the sum of eight hundred and five dollars ($805), no part of which appears to have been 
'paid. 

By the Court. 
Filed December 24, 1906. 
A true copy. 

Test this 2d day of January, 1907. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 
18 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 19 

MARY E. HAYGOOD, HEIR OF JOHN M. LAWSON. 

tCourt of Claims. Congressional, No. 10130. Mary E. Haygood, heir of John M. Lawson, deceased, 

V. The United States.] 

This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- 
nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war 
for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that 
John M. Lawson, the person alleged to have fiunished such supplies or stores, or from 
whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the 
United States throughout said war. 

By- the Court. 

Filed December 17, 1906. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 10130. Maiy E. Haygood, heir of John M. Lawson, 

deceased, v. The United States.] 

i- ' STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 27th day of March 
1900. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 17th day of December, 1906, found 
that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they 
were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States 
throughout said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 21st day of October, 1907. 
Messrs. George A. & Wm. B. King appeared for claimant and the Attorney-General, 
by P. M. Ashford, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes the following allegations: 

1. That she is the daughter of John M. Lawson, deceased. 

2. That the following property belonging to John M. Lawson was taken from him 
by the United States Army and used by the said Army, the date, place, and com- 

, mand being particularly stated below : 

In Lauderdale County, in the State of Alabama, on or about the 5th day of Novem- 
ber, 1864, by a brigade of United States troops under the command of Col. D. E. Goon, 
namely: 

1. 500 bushels of corn $750 ' 

2. 4,000 pounds of fodder 80 

3. 11 head of pork hogs, 1,800 pounds 270 

4. 11 head of stock hogs, 100 pounds each 100 

5. 150 pounds of fodder 7 

1,207 

3. That a claim for said property was presented to the Southern Claims Commission 
but was not allowed by said tribunal because the claimant had taken benefit from the 
bankruptcy law and was therefore not qualified to prosecute the claim. 

4. That the said claim has been presented to the Fifty-sixth Congi-ess and was by 
the House of Representatives of the said Fifty-sixth Congi-ess referred to the Committee 
on War Claims of said House, by which committee it was, on the 27th day of March, 
1900, referred to this court for a finding of the facts in accordance with section 1 of an 
act approved March 3, 1883, entitled "An act to afford assistance and relief to Congress 
and the Executive Departments in the investigation of claims and demands against 
the Government." 

The court, upon the evidence and after the consideration of briefs and after hearing 
the arguments of the respective counsels, makes the following 

FINDING OF FACT. 

During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United 
States, for the use of the Army, by proper authority, took from the claimant's dece*- 
dent in Lauderdale County, State of Alabama, property of the kind and character above 



20 aLlLowance of ceetain claims. 

described, whicli at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of 
nine hundred and twenty dollars (1920.00). 

No payment appears to ever have been made therefor. 

By the Court. 
Filed October 28, 1907. 
A true copy. 

Test this 29th day of November, 1907. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

JOHN C. McDANIEL, ADMINISTRATOR OF JOHN W. McDANIEL. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 8097. Estate of John W. McDaniel, deceased, v. The United 

States.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or 
furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war 
for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that 
John W. McDaniel, deceased, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or 
stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Gov- 
ernment of the United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed February 19, 1906. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 8097. John C. McDaniel, administrator of John W. 
McDaniel, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their use diiring 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims on the 15th day of December, 1890. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 19th day of February, 1906, found that 
the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were 
alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- 
out said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 12th day of February, 1907. 

George A. and William B.'King, esq., appeai'ed for claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by F. DeC. Faust, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

The claimant, John W. McDaniel, respectfully represents that he is the adminis- 
trator of John W. McDaniel, deceased, appointed on the 8th day of September, 1897, 
by the probate court in and for the county of Cleburne and State of Alabama, his war- 
rant of authority being herewith brought into court; that said decedent was, during 
the late war, a resident of the State of Alabama and did not give any aid or comfort 
to the said rebellion, but was thi'oughout that war loyal to the Government of the 
United States. 

That the following property belonging to John W. McDaniel was taken from him by 
the United States Army and used by the said Army, the date, place, and command 
being particularly stated below: 

In Calhoun County, in the State of Alabama, on or about the 1st day of August, 1864, 
by General McCook's command, to wit: jf^lj 

1. 4 No. 1 mules, $200 |800. 00 

2. 1 No. 1 horse 200. 00 

3. 4 saddles, at $15 60. 00 

4. 200 bushels corn and 100 sacks, at $2.25 450. 00 

5. 1,200 bundles of fodder and oats, at 2 cents per bundle 24. 00 

6. 500 pounds of bacon, at 20 cents per pound 100. 00 

7. 300 pounds of flour, at $7.50 per 100 22. 50 

8. 5 bushels of com meal, at $2 10. 00 

9. 1 razor 5. 00 

10. 4 guns, 2 rifles, 1 double-barrel shotgun 80. 00 

11. 1 coverlet 8. 00 

12. 5 saddle blankets, at $1.50 7. 50 

. 13. 2 silver spoons, at $2.50 5. 00 

(Taken April 25, 1865, by Brig. Gen. John T. Croxton, U. S. Army.) 

14. 1 No. 1 horse 250. 00 

Total 2, 022.00 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 21 

That a claim for said property was presented to the Southern Claims Commission, 
the items of said claim being as heretofore stated. 

Said claim was not allowed by said tribunal, the ground for said action being that 
it was not considered that the claimant's loyalty had been established. 

That the said claim has been presented to the Fifty-first Congress and was by the 
House of Representatives of the said Fifty-first Congress referred to the Committee on 
War Claims of said House, by which committee it was, on the 15th day of February, 
1890, referred to this court for a finding of the facts in accordance with section 1 of an 
act approved March 3, 1883, entitled, "An act to afford assistance and relief to Con- 
gress and the Executive Departments in the investigation of claims and demands 
against the Government." 

That no other action than as aforesaid has been had on this claim in Congress or 
by any of the Departments; that the claimant is the sole owner of this claim and 
the only person interested therein; that no assignment or transfer of this claim or of 
any part thereof or interest therein has been made; that the claimant is justly enti- 
tled to the amount herein claimed from the United States; and the claimant believes 
the facts as stated in this petition to be true. 

And the claimant prays a finding of the facts in accordance with the aforesaid act. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDING OF FACT. 

There was taken from the claimant's decedent in Calhoun County, State of Alabama, 
by the military forces of the United States during the war for the suppression of the 
rebellion, for the use of the Army, property of the kind and character described in 
the petition, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum 
of seven hundred and ninety ($790) dollars. 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

By the Court. 

Filed February 18, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 29th day of November, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assista7it Clerk Court of Claims. 

J. P. McCLENDON, ADMINISTRATOR. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10328. Estate of Meredith King, deceased, v. The United States.] 

This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- 
nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for 
the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Meie- 
dith King, deceased, the person alleged to have furnished siich supplies or stores, or 
from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was liyal to the Government 
of the United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed June 18, 1902. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 10328. J. P. McClendon, administrator de bonis non of 
Meredith King, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken 
by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late 
war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted to the court by the Committee 
on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 15th day of January, 1901. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 16th day of June, 1902, found that the 
person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores or from whom they were alleged 
to have been taken, was loyal to the Govermnent of the United States throughout said 
war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 3d day of December, 1906. 

G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by A. C. 
Campbell, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

That he is a citizen of the United States, residing in Jackson County, State of Ala- 
bama, where his decedent resided during the late war of the rebellion; that at different 



22 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAHsT CLAIMS. 



times during said period the United States forces, by proper authority, took from his 
decedent quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the value of $1,820 and 
appropriated the same to the use of the United States Army, as follows: 

3 horses, at 1150 ^nnn'nn 

1 wagon and harness f^^^- ]^^ 

40 head of hogs, at $5 Vn^n 

1 ox - 10. 00 

30 head of sh eep ^60-0^ 

900 bushels of corn, at $1 y^^- ^^ 

3,500 pounds of fodder, at $2 70-0^ 

1,500 binds of oats, at |2 30.00 

Total 1,820.00 

(Taken from November, 1863, to January, 1864, by General Johnson and Colonel 
Oliver, of the Fifteenth Michigan Regiment.) 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments ot 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the 
United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took from claimant's 
decedent, Meredith King, in Jackson County, Ala., stores and supplies as above set 
out, which were then and there reasonably worth the sum of seven hundred dollars 
($700), for which no payment appears to have been made. 
^ By the Court. 

Filed December 10, 1906. 
A true copy. 

. Test this 21st day of December, 1906. 
[seal.] 



John Randolph, 
Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



C. J. McKEE. 



[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 6947. Estate of David B. Johnson v. The United States.] 

This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or 
furnished to the militarv forces of the United States for their use during the late war 
for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that 
David B. Johnson, deceased, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or 
stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Govern- 
ment of the United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed December 19, 1904. 

r Court of Claims. Congressional, No 6947. C. J. McKee, administrator of the estate of David B. 
Johnson, deceased, v. The United States.] 

statement of case. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the militarv forces of the United States, for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 21st day ot Feb- 

Qn'a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 19th day of December, 1904, found that 
the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores or from whom they were 
alleged to have^been taken was loyal to the Government of the United States through- 
out said war. . , n <, i j ^^ r^ i i one 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 13th day of December, 190b. 

Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by George H. 
Walker, esq., his assistant and under his dh-ection, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

That he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Morgan, 
State of Alabama; that he is the duly appointed, qualified, and acting administrator 
of the estate of David B. Johnson, deceased, late of said county and State; that dur- 
ing the late civil war said decedent was a citizen of the United States, residing in 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIlSr CLAIMS. 23 

said county and State; that during said war the United States military forces, under' 
proper authority, took from said decedent and converted to the use of the United 
States commissary stores and supplies of the kinds and values below stated, to wit: 

27 boxes plug tobacco, 2,835 pounds, at |2 per pound $5, 770. 00 

8 boxes twist tobacco, 200 pounds, at $1.50 per pound 300. 00 

50 pounds of Java coffee, at 25 cents per pound 12. 50 

1 box of medicines 600. 00 

1 tierce rice, 600 pounds, at 16f cents per pound 100. 00 

Total 6, 782. 50 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel for both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OP FACT. 

I. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the 
United States, by the provost-marshal acting under orders of Major-General Stanley, 
took from the claimant's decedent in Morgan County, State of Alabama, property of 
the kind and character described in the petition, but whether the same was sold and 
the proceeds paid into the Treasury does not appear, nor does it appear whether same 
was used by the Army. 

The reasonable value of the property so seized was the sum of thirty-nine hundred 
dollars ($3,900), no part of which appears to have been paid. 

II. A claim for this property was presented to the Southern Claims Commission, 
but in 1879 rejected by said Commission, because they wei'e not satisfied that the 
property was seized for the use of the Army. 

The claim was presented to Congress and referred by the House of Representatives 
to this court on February 21, 1889, as aforesaid. 

By the Court. 
Filed December 24, 1906. 
A true copy. 
• Test this 4th day of January, 1907. 

[seal. J John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

LEWID F. MARTIN, ADMINISTRATOR OF FRANCIS C. MARTIN. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 4852. Lewid F. Martin, executor of Francis C. Martin, deceased, 

V. The United States.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- 
nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for 
the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Francis 
C. Martin, deceased, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or 
from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of 
the United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed May 20, 1895. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 4852. Lewid F. Martin, administrator of Francis C. Martin, 

deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim of the above-entitled case for supplies, or stores, alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their use dur- 
ing the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by 
the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives, on the 10th day ot 
July, 1888. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 20th clay of May, 1895, found that the 
person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were 
alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- 
out said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 21st day of October, 1907. 

Messrs. George A. & William B. King appeared for claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by F. W. Collins, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 



24 ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

1. That he is the administrator of Francis C. Martin, deceased. 

2. That the following property belonging to said deceased was taken from him by 
the United States Army, and used by the said Army, the date, place, and command 
being particularly stated below. 

In Limestone County, in the State of Alabama, on or about the 1st of June, 1862: 

1. 160 cords of wood $480 

2. 160 pounds of bacon 20 

3. 40 bushels potatoes 30 

4. 1 mule and 1 horse 300 

5. 8,000 pounds of fodder 120 

6. 50 barrels corn 250 

7. 1,000 pounds of bacon 250 

8. 150 barrels corn 750 

9. 1,000 pounds of bacon 250 

10. 12,000 pounds of fodder 180 

11. 1 mule and 1 horse 260 

12. 6,000 rails 180 



3,070 

That a claim for said property was presented to the Southern Claims Commission, 
but was not allowed by said tribunal, the ground for said action being that it was 
considered that claimant was a bankrupt. 

3. That the said claim has been presented to the Fiftieth Congress, and was by the 
House of Representatives of the said Fiftieth Congress referred to the Committee on 
War Claims of said House, by which committee it was on the 10th day of July, 1888, 
referred to this court for a finding of the facts in accordance with section 1 of an act 
approved March 3, 1883, entitled "An act to afford assistance and relief to Congress 
and the Executive Departments in the investigation of claims and demands against 
the Government." 

The com-t, after considering the briefs and argument of counsel on both sides, makes 
the following 

FINDINGS OP PACT. 

Dming the late civil war the military forces of the United States, l)y proper authority 
for the use of the Army, took from claimant's decedent in Limestone County, in the 
State of Alabama, property of the kind and character above mentioned, which at the 
time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of nine hundred and twenty-five 
dollars ($925). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

By the Court." 
. Filed October 28, 1907. 
A true copy. 

Test this 21st day of January, 1908. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

J. G. MASON, ADMINISTRATOR. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 7004. Estate of John R. Mason, deceased, v. The United States.] 

This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- 
nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the 
suppression of the relDellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, linds that John O. 
Mason, one of the persons alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from 
whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the 
United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed November 2, 1903. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 7004. Glorvinia Mason v. The United States.] 

This case, l^eing a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or 
furnished to the military forces of the LTnited States for their use during the late war 
for the suppression of the rel)cllion. the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that 
Glorvinia Mason, the penson alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or 
from whom the same are alleged to have lieen taken, was loyal to the Government of 
the United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed April 5, 1905. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAUsT CLAIMS. 25 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 7004. J. G. Mason, administrator of the estate of Glorvinia 
Mason and John O. Mason, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rel^ellion, was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on February 23, 1889. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on November 2, 1903, and April 5, 1905, found 
claimant's decedents, John O. Mason and Glorvinia Mason, to have been loyal to the 
Government of the United States throughout said war, the case being dismissed as to 
the interest of Robert B. Mason. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 9th day of November, A. D. 
1905. 

Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Philip A. 
Ashford, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States.. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations, to wit: 

That he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Limestone, 
State of Alabama; that he is the duly appointed, qualified, and acting administrator 
of the estates of Glorvinia Mason and of John 0. Mason, deceased, late of said county 
and State; that during the late civil war said decedents resided in said county and 
State; that during said war the United States military forces, under proper authority, 
took from said decedents, Glorvinia Mason and John O. Mason, and their coowner, 
Robert B. Mason, quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the kinds and 
values below stated, to wit, in which said Glorvinia Mason and said John O. Mason 
each owned an undivided one-third interest : 

28 mules, at |150 each |4, 200. 00 

1 mare 150. 00 

1 mare 125. 00 

1,227 bushels of corn, at 70 cents per bushel 858. 90 

9,000 pounds of fodder 135. 00 

100 head of hogs, 20,000 pounds, at 12 cents per pound 2, 400. 00 

75 head of sheep, at $2 per head 150. 00 

50,000 rails, 500 cords, at $3 per cord 1, 500. 00 

3,000 pounds of bacon, at 25 cents per pound 750. 00 

Total 10, 268. 90 

The undivided two-thirds interest of petitioner's decedents in said property so taken 
amounting to 16,845.90. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OP FACT. 

I. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the 
United States, for the use of the Army, by proper authority ^ took from the claimant's 
decedents, Glorvinia Mason and John 0. Mason, and their coowner, Robert B. Mason, 
in Limestone County, State of Alabama, property as above described, which, at the 
time and place of taking, was reasonably worth the sum of five thousand nine hun- 
dred and eighty-five dollars (|5,985), no part of which appears to have been paid for. 

The undivided two-thirds interest of said decedents, Glorvinia Mason and John O. 
Mason, in the property so taken amounts to three thousand nine hundred and ninety 
dollars ($3,990), belonging in equal shares to each of said decedents. 

II. The claim of Robert B. Mason, deceased, is not before the court, he having been 
heretofore found not loyal and the claim as to him dismissed. 

By the Court. 
Filed January 29, 1906. 
A true copy. 

Test this 9th day of February, 1906. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

J. W. MITCHELL, ADMINISTRATOR. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 7082. J. W. Mitchell, administrator of the estate of Thomas 
J. MitcheU, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during 



26 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 



the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 26th day of Feb- 
ruary, 1889. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 17th day of March, 1902, found that the 
person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were 
alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- 
out said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 20th day of February, 1905. 
G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by W. W. 
Scott, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and pro- 
tection of the interests of the United StaJ^.P9. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

That he is a citizen of the United States, residing in Jackson County, State of Ala- 
bama, where his decedent resided during the late war of the rebellion; that at differ- 
ent times during said period the military forces of the United States, by proper author- 
ity, took from his decedent quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the value 
of $494 and appropriated the same to the use of the United States Army, as follows: 

270 bushels of corn, at 75 cents._ ._ $202. 50 

(Taken in August, 1863, by Lieutenant Williams, of Company G, Seventy- 
seventh Indiana Regiment Mounted Infantry.) 

1 horse 100. 00 

(Taken November 6, 1863, by Colonel Oliver, Fifteenth Michigan Regi- 
ment.) 

46 bushels of corn, at 75 cents 34. 50 

(Taken December, 1863, by Sixth Iowa and Fifteenth Michigan regim^ents.) 

Taking care of wounded soldier, 5 weeks 100. 00 

75 bundles of fodder 2. 00 

3 head of hogs, 450 pounds, at 10 cents 45. 00 

1 fire stove 10. 00 

(Taken in December, 1864, by Second Tennessee and Twelfth Indiana regi- 
ments Volunteers.) 

Total 494.00 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

There was taken from the claimant's decedent, in the county of Jackson, State of 
Alabama, during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces 
of the United States for the use of the Army, property of the kind above described 
which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of two hundred and ninety- 
nine dollars ($299), for which no payment appears to have been made. 

By the Court. 
Filed March 20, 1905. 
A true copy. 

Test this 3d day of June, 1905. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

JAMES A. PAULK. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11852. James A. Paulk v. The United States.] 
statement op case. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the 
Senate of the United States, by resolution, on the 3d day of March, 1905, under the 
act of March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act. 

The case was Ijrought to a hearing on its merits on the 16th day of January, 1906. 
Ralston & Siddons, esqs., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by P. M. 
Ashford, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

That he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Bidlock County, Ala. ; 
that throughout the war of the rebellion he was loyal to the United States and gave 
no aid or comfort to the rebellion. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 27 

That he was born on August 2, 1849, and was under 16 years of agewhen said war 
terminated. That he was during said war an orphan, his father having died in the 
year 1852 and his mother in the year 1861. 

That in the latter part of April, 1865, a command of General Wilson, known as 
Grierson's cavalry, took from the claimant at his plantation, 7 miles southeast of Union 
Springs, in what is now Bullock County, Ala., the following stores and supplies: 

16 mules, at $200 |3, 200 

2 horses, at $150 300 

1 buggy 50 

1 carriage 100 

4 wagons 100 

5,000 pounds meat, at 20 cents 1, 500 

1,000 bushels corn, at $1 1, 000 

16 oxen, at $100 1, 600 

20 hogs 100 

2 saddles 30 

18 bridles , 36 

15 bales of cotton 1, 500 



Total 9, 516 

That the claimant was the sole owner of said property, none of which was ever 
returned or paid for; that no vouchers or receipts were given therefor; that claimant 
has never assigned or transferred this claim, and is now entitled to recover the 
amount thereof. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the claimant was loyal to the Government of 
the United States during the war of the rebellion. 

II. There was taken from the claimant, in what is now Bullock County, State of 
Alabama, during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces 
of the United States, for the use of the Army, property of the kind and character 
described in the petition, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth 
tne sum of three ^lousand three hundred and ninety dollars ($3,390), for which no 
payment appears to have been made. 

III. A claim was never presented to any Department or officer of the Government 
prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court as aforesaid. It is 
shown in evidence that the claimant was a minor at the time of the taking of the 
property, he being but 16 years of age at the close of the war. 

By the Court. 
Filed January 29, 1906. 
A true copy. 

Test this 1st day of February, 1906. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

J. B. ROBERSON, ADMINISTRATOR. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional Case No. 11224. J. B. Roberson, administrator, with will annexed, of 
John P. Roberson, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the 
House of Representatives under the Tucker Act on the 18th day of March, 1903. 

The case was brought to hearing on its merits on the 12th day of April, 1906. 

C. M. Shelley, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by F. DeC. 
Faust, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and pro- 
tection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegation: 

I. That he is a citizen of the United States, residing in the State of Alabama, and 
is the executor of the last will and testament of John P. Roberson, deceased, who in, 
his lifetime was a citizen of the United States and resided in St. Clair County, Ala. 



28 ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 

II. That during ttie years from 1861 to 1865, inclusive, soldiers of the United States 
operating against the Confederate forces took from the farm of said John P. Roberson, 
St. Clair County, Ala., and appropriated to the use of the armies of the United States 
the following stores and supplies of the value set opposite each item: 

1 stallion $1, 000. 00 

5 mules 500 00 

4 horses 525. 00 

750 pounds of bacon 112. 50 

800 pounds of fioiu-. : 36. 00 

200 bushels of corn 200. 00 

III. Petitioner does not know what commands or regiments the said soldiers be- 
longed to who took said property. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the claimant's decedent was loyal to the 
Government of the United States throughout the war of the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion, in St. Clair County, State 
of Alabama, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use 
of the Army, took from the claimant's decedent property of the kind and character 
above described, which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of one thousand 
two hundred and thirty dollars (|1,230), for which no payment appears to have been 
made. 

By the Court. 
Filed April 23, 1906. 
A true copy. 

Test this 12th day of December, 1906. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerlz Court of Claims. 

CHARLES O. ROLFE, ADMINISTRATOR. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 4060. Estate of Oscar O. Rolfe, deceased, v. Tlie United States.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or 
fxurnished to the military forces of the United States, for their use during the late war 
for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that 
Oscar 0. Rolfe, deceased, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, 
or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government 
of the United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed May 31, 1904. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 4060. Charles O. Rolle, administrator of the estate of Oscar A. 
Kolfe, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken 
by or furnished to ^he military forces of the United States, for their use during the late 
war for the su]Dpression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Committee 
on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 20th day of April, 1888. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 31st day of May, 1904, found that the 
person alleged to have f mniished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged 
to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States thi'oughout said 
war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 14th day of May, 1906. 

Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by George M. 
Anderson, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

That he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County of Morgan, 
State of Alabama; that he is the duly appointed, qualified, and acting administrator of 
the estate of Oscar A. Rolfe, deceased; that during the late civil war said decedent was 
a citizen of the United States, residing in the county of Morgan, State of Alabama; that 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 29 

during the late civil war the United States military forces, acting under proper author- 
ity, took from said decedent and converted to the use of the United States Army quar- 
termaster stores and commissary supplies of the kinds and values below stated, to wit: 
Taken from summer of 1862 until spring of 1864, from plantation of decedent, near 
Decatur, Ala., by troops under command of General Mitchell, General Grainger, Gen- 
eral Sprague, and Captain Wade, including the One hundred and sixth Colored Infan- 
try, Sixty-third Ohio Infantry, Eighteenth Michigan Infantry, and a Zouave regiment: 

100 panels of rails §20. 00 

Stable 39. 75 

Kitchen floor 11. 20 

Storehouse 21. 60 

Double cabin 101. 00 

Wagon and saws 165. 00 

8, 000 pounds of pork, at 8 cents per pound 640. 00 

5,000 pounds of bacon, at 25 cents per pound 1, 250. 00 

1 fine bay mare, 6 years old 200. 00 

200 pounds of sugar, at 10 cents per pound 20. 00 

40 gallons of molasses, at $1 per gallon 40. 00 

8 barrels of salt, at |3 per barrel 24. 00 

2,500 bushels of corn, at $1 per bushel : 2, 500. 00 

372 bushels of corn, at $1 per bushel 372. 00 

16,500 pounds of beef, at 5 cents per pound 825. 00 

5,000 pounds of fodder, at 2 cents per pound 100. 00 

16,500 pounds of beef, at 5 cents per pound 825. 00 

Total 7, 154. 55 

The com't, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OP FACT. 

There was taken from the claimant's decedent, in Morgan County, State of Ala- 
bama, during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the militaiy forces of 
the United States, for the use of the Army, stores and supplies of the kind and char- 
acter above described, which were then and there reasonably worth the sum of two 
thousand nine hundred and eighty dollars (|2,980.00), for which no payment appears 
to have been made. 

By the Court. 

Filed May 21, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 1st day of December, 1906. 

[seal.] " John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

JAMES M. THOMASON. 

[Court ol Claims. Congressiona], No. 5888. James M. Thomason v. The United States.] 

This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- 
nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for 
the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that James 
M. Thomason, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from 
whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Govermnent of the 
United*States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed December 12, 1904. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 5888. James M. Thompson v. The United States.] 
statement of case. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken 
by or furnished to the military forces of the IJnited States for their use during the late 
war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Committee 
on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 6th day of August, 1888. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court on the 12th day of December, 1904, found that 
the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were 
alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- 
out said war. 



30 ALJ.OWAISrCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 7th day of May, 1906. 

G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for claimant and the Attorney-General, by James A. 
Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and pro- 
tection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

That he resides in Colbert County, State of Alabama, and is the original owner of 
this claim, and was the owner and possessor at the times hereinafter stated of the 
following stores and supplies taken for the military use of the United States at or near 
the town of Barton, in the county of Colbert, and State of Alabama, that is to say. 

1 gray horse 1125 

1 bay horse 150 

1 chestnut-sorrel mare 125 

1 black mule 150 

8 beef cattle, at $20 160 

30 hogs, at $6 180 

100 bushels of corn, at |1 100 

500 pounds of bacon, at 25 cents 125 

Total 1, 115 

(Taken April 1, 1863, by the commands of Colonel Straight and General Dodge.) 
The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

There was taken from the claimant, in the county of Colbert, State of Alabama, 
during the war of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States for the 
use of the Army, by proper authority, stores and supplies of the kind and character 
above described, which were then and there reasonably worth the sum of six hun- 
dred and eighty-five dollars ($685), for which no payment appears to have been made. 

By the Court. 

Filed May 14, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 23d day of May, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

CECILIA R. A. WHEAT, EXECUTRIX OF MOSES K. WHEAT. 

[Court of Claims. C. R. A. Wheat, administratrix of Moses K. Wheat, deceased, v. The United States. 

Congressional, No. 4061.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- 
nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for 
the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Moses 
K. Wheat, deceased, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, 
or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government 
of the United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed February 25, 1907. 

[Court of Claims, Congressional case No. 4061. Mrs. Cecilia R. A. Wheat, executrix of Moses IC. Wheat, 

deceased, v. The United States.] 

statement of case. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies, or stores, alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their use dur- 
ing the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court bj^ 
the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 20th day of 
April, 1888. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 25th day of February, 1907, found that 
the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were 
alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- 
out said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 9th day of January, 1908. 
Moyers and Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Charles F. 
Kincheloe, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 



ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 31 

The claimant in her petition makes the following allegations : 

That she is a citizen of the United States, residing in the county of Macon, State 
of Alabama; that she is the duly appointed, qualified, and acting executrix of the 
last will and testament of Moses K. Wlieat, deceased, late of said county and State; 
that during the civil war the United States military forces, under proper authority, 
took from said decedent, for use of the Army, quartermaster stores and commissary 
supplies of the kinds and values below stated, to wit: 

Taken about April 14, 15, and 16, 1865: 

14 mules, at $155 each $2, 170. 00 

6 horses 950. 00 

3,000 bushels corn, at $1.50 per bushel 4, 500. 00 

10 tons fodder, at $30 per ton 300. 00 

1,500 pounds bacon, at 20 cents per pound 300. 00 

Buggy and harness used for sick officer 125. 00 

6 barrels flour, at $12 per barrel 72. 00 

300 pounds lard 75. 00 

200 pounds sugar 40. 00 

100 yards osnaburgs 35. 00 



Total 8, 567. 00 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel upon both sides, makes the following 

FINDING OF FACT. 

During the late civil war the United States military forces, under proper authority, 
took from claimant's decedent, Moses K. Wheat, in the county of Macon, State of 
Alabama, for use of the Army, stores and supplies of kinds mentioned in the petition, 
which at the time and place of taking were reasonably worth the sum of four thousand 
eight hundred and ninety dollars ($4,890). 

No payment appears to have been made for said property or any part thereof. 

By the Court. 

Filed January 13, 1908. 

A true copy. 

Test this 18th day of January, 1908. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

ARKANSAS. 

JOHN W. BEAN. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11303. John W. Bean y. The United States.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by 
or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the 
late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminarj^ in- 
quiry, finds that John W. Bean, the person alleged to have furnished such sup- 
plies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was 
loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed October 31, 1901. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11303. John W. Bean v. The United States.] 

statement OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have 
been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their 
use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted to 
the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on 
the 4th day of March, 1904. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 31st day of October, 1904, found 
that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom 
they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the 
United States throughout said war. 



32 ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 

The case was brought to a hearing ou its merits on the 22cl day of March, 1905. 

Henry M. Foote, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
George H. Walker, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations : 

That he is a citizen of the United States, residing in the State of Arkansas, 
where he resided during the war of the rebellion ; that at different times during 
said period the United States forces, by proper authority, took from him quar- 
termaster stores and commissary supplies of the value of $520 and appropriated 
the same to the use of the United States Army, as follows : 

1 yoke of steers, good beef cattle $50. 00 

1 yoke of steers, good beef cattle 75.00 

1 horse, 4 years old 45.00 

200 bushels wheat, $1 per bushel 200.00 

300 bushels corn, 50 cents per bushel 150.00 

Total 520. 00 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDING OF FACTS. 

1. There was taken from the claimant in Washington County, State of Arkan- 
sas, during the war for the supjtression of the rebellion, by the military forces 
of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, property as 
above described, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth 
the sum of two hundred and ninety dollars ($290). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

By the Court. 

Filed April 10, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 11th day of January, A. D. 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

JOSEPH H. BEAN, ADMINISTRATOR OF JOSEPH BEAN. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 8339. Joseph Bean v. The United States.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been talven by 
or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary 
inquiry, finds that Joseph Bean, the person alleged to have furnished such sup- 
plies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was 
loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed December 19, 1904. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 8339. Joseph N. Bean, administrator of 
estate of Joseph Bean, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies, or stores, alleged to have 
been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for tlicir 
use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to 
the court by tlae Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on 
the 2d day of March. 1891. 

On the preliminary inquiry the court, on the 19th day of December, 1904, found 
that the person alleged to have fui-nished the supplies or stores, or from wh(im 
they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the 
United States throughout said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits ou the 19th day of February, 
1907. 

Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Mal- 
colm A. Coles, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 



ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIlsr CLAIMS. 33 

The claimant in his petition maltes the following allegations : 
That he is a citi'zen of the United States and a resident of the county of 
Nevada, State of Arl^ansas ; that he is the duly appointed, qualified, and acting 
administrator of the estate of Joseph Bean, deceased, late of said county and 
State. 

That during the late civil war said decedent was a citizen of the United 
States, residing in said county of Nevada, State of Arkansas ; that during said 
war the United States military forces, under proper authority, took from said 
decedent and converted to the use of the United States Army, quartermaster 
stores and commissary supplies of the kinds and A^alues below stated, to wit : 

Taken from farm of decedent in Nevada County, Ark., by troops under 
command of General Thayer, of General Steele's army, in April, 
1864: 

5 horses, at $135 each $675,00 

25 hogs, 160 pounds each, 124 cents per pound 500. 00 

1,150 pounds of flour (5| barrels), at $12 per barrel 69. 00 

18 bushels of wheat, at $1.50 per bushel 27. 00 

2,200 pounds of bacon, at 18 cents per pound 396. 00 

25 gallons of molasses, at 90 cents per gallon 22. 50 

1,500 bundles of fodder, at 2 cents each 30. 00 

Total 1, 719. 50 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT, 

There was taken from the claimant's decfedent in Nevada County, State of 
Arkansas, by the military forces of the United States, during the late civil war, 
for the use of the Army, property as above described, which at the time and 
place of taking was reasonably, worth the sum of six hundred and forty-eight 
dollars ($648). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

By the Court. 

Filed February 25, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 7th day of January, 1908. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

WILLIAM A. BETHEL, ADMINISTRATOR. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 8556. Oliver P. Lister and Martha Harrison v. 

The United States.] 

This case, being a' claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by 
or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the 
late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, 
finds that Oliver P. Lister and Martha Harrison, the persons alleged to have 
furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have 
been taken, were loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said 
war. 

By the Court. 

Filed April 18, 1898. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 8556. William A. Bethel, administrator of 
the estate of Martha Harrison, deceased, and Oliver P. Lister v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have 
been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their 
use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to 
the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on 
the 16th day of February, 1892, 

H. Kep. 543, 60-1 3 



34 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

On a prelimiuarj' inquiry tlie court, on the IStli day of April, 1S9S, found the 
claimants herein, the persons alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, 
or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, were loyal to the Govern- 
ment of the United States throughout said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 2d day of December, 
A. D. 1905. 

Cyrus Snyder, esq., appeared for claimant (Moyers & Consaul, of counsel), 
and the Attorney-General, by Charles F. Kincheloe, esq., his assistant, and 
under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of 
the United States, 

The original claimants in their petition make the following allegations : 

That they were during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion citi- 
zens of the United States, residing in Jefferson County, Ark. ; that at different 
times during said period the United States military forces, by proper authority, 
took from them quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the value 
of $1,900 and appropriated the same to the use of the United States Army, as 
follows, to wit : 

Taken from claimant's premises, near Pine Bluff, Ark., about November, 1863 : 

1,200 bushels of corn, at $1 per bushel $1, 200 

25 head of cattle, at $20 each ; 500 

1 mule 150 

2,000 bundles of fodder, at $2.50 per hundred 50 

Total 1, 900 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

findijstg of facts. 

There was taken from the claimant, Oliver P. Lister, and from the decedent, 
Martha Harrison, during the war of the rebellion, by the military forces of the 
United States, for the use of the Army, property of the kind and character above 
described, of which the claimants herein were the owners of two-fifths, the 
reasonable value of said two-fifths of said property at the time and place of 
taking being the sum of three hundred and ninety-nine dollars ($399), for which 
no payment appears to have been made. 

By the Court. 

Filed December 11, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 24th day of April, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

SARAH BREWER. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 5108. Estate of John Brawer, deceased, v. The 

United States.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by 
or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the 
late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary in- 
quiry, finds that John Brewer, deceased, the person alleged to have furnished 
such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, 
was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the said war. 

By the Coubt. 

Filed January IS, 1904. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 5108. Sarah Bre-^-er, widow and sole heir of John 
Brewer, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use 
during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted to the 
court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 
10th day of July, 1888. 



ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIlSr CLAIMS. 35 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 18th day of January, 1904, found 
fliat the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom 
they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the 
United States throughout said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 17th day of October, 
1906. 

Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Hon. 
J. A. Van Orsdel, his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the de- 
fense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes the following allegations : 

That she is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Washington 
County, State of Arkansas ; that she is the widow and heir of John Brewer, de- 
ceased, late of said county and State ; that during the late civil war said dece- 
dent resided in the county of Madison, State of Arkansas, and was a citizen of 
the United States ; that during said war the United States military forces, 
vmder proper authority, took from said decedent and converted to the use of 
the United States Army, quartermaster stores and supplies of the kinds and 
values below stated, to wit : 

140 bushels of corn $120.00 

SO bushels of corn 64.00 

75 bushels of oats 45.00 

1 mare 100. 00 

Total 329.00 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel upon both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. During the late civil war the United States military forces, under proper 
authority, took from petitioner's decedent, John Brewer, in Madison County, 
Ark., quartermaster stores of the kinds described in the petition, which at the 
time and place of taking were reasonably worth the sum of two hundred and 
thirty-two dollars ($232). 

No payment appears to have been made for said property or any part thereof. 

II. The petitioner, Sarah Brewer, is shown by the evidence to be the widow 
and sole heir and representative of said John Brewer, deceased. 

By the Couet. 
Filed November 12, 1906. 
A true copy. 

Test this 12th day of December, 1906. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

J. M. DERREBBRRY, ADMINISTRATOR OF SAMUEL B. DERREBERRY. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 5187. Estate of Samuel B. Derreberry, deceased. 

V. The United States.] 

This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or 
furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the 
late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, 
finds that Samuel B. Derreberry, deceased, the person alleged to have furnished 
such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, 
was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed October 27, 1902. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 5187. J. M. Derreberry, administrator of Samuel 
B. Derreberry, deceased, v. The United States.] 

statement of case. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have 
been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their 
use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to 
the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on 
the 10th day of July, ISSS. 



86 ALLOWANCE OP CEKTAUST CLAIMS. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on tlie 27tli day of October, 1902, found 
that the person alleged to liave furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom 
they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United 
States throughout said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 7th day of November, 
1905. George A. & William B. King, esqs., appeared for claimant, and the At- 
torney-General, by F; De C. Faust, esq., his assistant and under his direction, 
appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations : 

I. That he is the administrator of Samuel B. Derreberry, claimant's decedent, 
and was appointed on the 19th day of January, 1903, by the probate court in 
and for the county of Benton, State of Arkansas ; that said decedent was during 
the late war a resident of the State of Arkansas, and did not give any aid or 
comfort to the said rebellion during the civil war, but was throughout that war 
loyal to the Government of the United States. 

II. That the following property belonging to the claimant's decedent was 
taken from him by the United States Army, the date, place, and command being 
particularly stated below : 

In Benton County, State of Arkansas, on or about the 5th of November, 1862, 
the forces of the United States, namely, Blunt's brigade, to wit : 

640 bushels of corn $640 

8 pork hogs 12S 

1 horse 150 

15 sheep 30 

8 cattle 80 

20 stock hogs 60 

7,000 rails and coal wood 350 

1 lot of poultry . 5 

Total 1. 443 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDING OF FACT. 

There was taken from the claimant's decedent in Benton County, State of 
Arkansas, 'during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by, the military 
forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, prop- 
erty as above described, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably 
worth the sum of seven hundred and iifteen dollars ($715). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

By the Court. 

Filed November 13, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 8th day of February, 1906. 

[SEAL ] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

J. H. DUKE, ADMINISTRATOR OF EDMUND F. DUKE. 

r Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 9250. Estate of Edmimd F. Duke, deceased, v. The 

United States.] 

This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or 
furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the 
late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, 
finds that Edmund F. Duke, deceased, the person alleged to have furnished such 
supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was 
loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. 

By the CotJET. 

Filed October 29, 1906. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 87 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 9250. J. H. Duke, administrator of the estate of 
Kdmund F. Duke, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in tlie above-eutitled case for supplies or stores alleged to bave been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their use 
during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the 
court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 
13th day of March, 1894. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 29th day of October, 1906, found 
that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores or from whom 
they were alleged to have been taken was loyal to the Government of the United 
States throughout said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 9th day of December, 
1907. 

Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
George E. Boren, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations : 

That he is a citizen of the United States, residing in the county of Madison, 
State of Tennessee ; that he is the duly appointed, qualified, and acting admin- 
istrator of the estate of Edmund F. Duke, deceased, late of the county of 
McNairy, State of Tennessee. 

That during the late civil war said Edmund F. Duke was the owner of cer- 
tain property in the county of Prairie, State of Arkansas, and that during 
said war there was taken from said decedent, for the use of the United States 
Army, quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the kinds and values 
below stated, to wit : 

Taken about November, 1863, from the farm of said decedent near Du- 
valls Bluff, Arkansas^ by the One hundred and tweutj'-sixth Illinois 
Infantry : 

2,500 bushels of corn, at $1 per busheU $2, 500 

128 stacks of hay 1,280 

158 head of beef cattle, at $20 each 3,160 

18 head of horses and mules, at $150 each 2, 700 

28 head of pork hogs, at $10 each 280 

21 head of goats, at $2 per head 42 

300 bushels sweet potatoes 300 

200 bushels Irish potatoes 200 

Total 10,462 

The court, upon the evidence and after considring the briefs and arguments 
of counsel upon both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. During the late civil war there was taken from claimant's decedent, Ed- 
mund F. Duke, by United States military forces, under proper authority, in the 
county of Prairie, State of Arkansas, quartermaster stores and commissary sup- 
plies of the kinds mentioned in the petition, which were then and there reason- 
ably worth the sum of three thousand seven hundred and five dollars ($3,705), 
no part of which appears to have been paid. 

By the Court. 

A true copy. 

Test this 14th day of January, 1908. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

SAM EDMONDSON, ADMINISTRATOR. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10511. Estate of Isaac T. Eppler, deceased, v. 

The United States.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or 
furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the 
late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, 



38 allowajstce of ceetatn claims. 

finds that Isaac T, Eppler (deceased), tlie person alleged to have furnished 
such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, 
was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. 

By the Coubt. 
Filed April 11, 1904. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 10511. Sam Edmondson, administrator Isaac 
T. Eppler, deceased, v. Tlie United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores, alleged to have 
been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their 
use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted 
to the court by the Committee on War Claims, House of Eepresentatives, on 
the 4th day of March, 1902. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 11th day of April, 1904, found that 
the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they 
were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United 
States throughout said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 24th day of October, 
1904. 

Henry M. Foote, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
Charles F. Kinc"heloe, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant, in his petition, makes the following allegations : 

That he is a citizen of the United States, residing in the State of Arkansas; 
that he is the duly appointed administrator of the estate of Isaac T. Eppler, 
deceased, who resided during the late civil war in the State of Arkansas ; that 
at different times during said period the United States forces, by proper author- 
ity, took from decedent quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the 
value of $4,685, and appropriated the same to the use of the United States 
Army, as follows : 

1863. 

Sept. 1. One wagon $100 

Three yoke of cattle - 225 

Oct. 1. Two hundred bushels of corn 200 

Ten tons of hay 300 

Two thousand bundles of fodder 60 

Forty-four cattle 880 

Three yoke of sl;eers : 225 

1864. 

June 1. Thirteen cattle 325 

Two hundred and thirty-seven hogs 2, 370 

Total 4, 685 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDING OF FACTS. 

There was taken from the claimant's decedent, in Sebastian County, State of 
Arkansas, during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military 
forces of the United States for the use of the Army, property of the kind and 
character above described, which was then and there reasonal)ly worth the sum 
of two thousand two hundred and five dollars ($2,205), for which no payment 
appears to have been made. 

P.T THE Court. 

Filed February 13, 1905. 

A true copv. 

Test this 11th day of January, A. D. 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph. 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIISr CLAIMS. 39 

WILLIAM H. ENGLES. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 9542. William H. Engles v. The United States.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or 
furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the 
late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary in- 
quiry, finds that William H. Engles, the person alleged to have furnished such 
supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to ha^-e been taken, was 
loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. 

By the Coxjet. 

Filed January 23, 1905. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 9542. William H. Engles v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use 
during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the 
court by the Committee on War Claims, House of Represeuatives, Bowman Act, 
on the 2d day of February, 1897. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 23d day of January, 1905, found 
that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom 
they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the 
United States throughout said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 12th day of March, 
1906. 

Shelley & Martin, esqs., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
George H. Walker, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations : 

I. That he is a citizen of the United States and resides in the State of Arkan- 
sas, and was loyal to the United States throughout the rebellion. 

II. That during the year 1S65 soldiers of the United States operating against 
the Confederate forces in the State of Arkansas, took from the farm of claimant 
in Washington County, Ark., and appropriated to the use of the armies of the 
United States the property shown by the following schedule, with the value set 
opposite to each item : 

Eight hundred bushels of wheat $1, 600 

Two hundred bushels of corn 200 

Four tons of hay 100 

One mule 200 

Two horses 200 

One wagon 150 

Total 2,450 

Petitioner alleges that said property was taken by troops under the com- 
mand Of General Herron and General Blunt, that the officer immediately in com- 
mand when the said wagon was taken was Lieut. James H. Wilson, First 
Arkansas Volunteer Cavalry, and he does not know who were the oflicers imme- 
diately in command when the other property was taken. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. There was taken from claimant, William H. Engles, in Washington County, 
Ark., by the military forces of the United States during the war for the sup- 
pression of the rebellion, by proper authority, property as above described, 
which at the time of taking was reasonably worth the sum of one thousand five 
hundred and ten dollars ($1,510). 

It does not appear that any payment has been made for any part thereof. 

By the Court. 

Filed March 19, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 9th day of April, 1906. 

[SEAL.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



40 ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. 

RICHARD D. LAMB, ADMINISTRATOR. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 7797. Richard D. Lamb, for himself and as ad- 
ministrator of Ira M. Lamb, heirs of Ira M. Lamb and Caroline, his wife, v. The 
United States.] 

This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by 
or furnistied to tlie military forces of tlie United States, for their use during the 
late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, 
finds that Richard D. Lamb and Ira M. Lamb, the persons alleged to have 
furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have 
been taken, were loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said 
war. 

By the Couet. 
Filed April 2, 1906. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 7797. Richard D. Lamb et al. v. The United 

States.] 

This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or 
furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their use during the 
late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary in- 
quiry, finds that upon the evidence it does not appear that Caroline Lamb, the 
person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom they 
are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United 
States throughout said war, and the case is dismissed for want of further 
jurisdiction. 

Filed April 2, 1906. 



By the Court. 



[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 7797. Richard D. Lamb, for himself and as admin- 
istrator of Ira M. Lamb, heirs of Ira M. Lamb and Caroline, his wife, v. The United 
States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies, or stores, alleged to have 
been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their 
use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to 
the court bv the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on 
the 5th day of June, 1900. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 2d day of April, 1006, fouud that 
the persons, Richard D. and Ira M. Lamb, alleged to have furnished the supplies 
or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, were loyal to 
the Government of the United States throughout said war, and that Caroline 
Lamb (deceased) was not loyal. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 29th day of March, 
1906. 

George A. and William H. King, esqs., appeared for claimant, and the Attor- 
ney-General, by Charles F. Kincheloe, es^., his assistant and under his direc- 
tion, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United 
States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

I. The claimant, Richard D. Lamb, is a resident of Philips County, Ark., and 
a citizen of the United States; that Ira M. Lamb, jv., departed this life in 
August. 1SS9 ; that on January 20, 1891, he was appointed administrator of the 
estate of said Ira M. Lamb, jr., as will appear from certified copy of letters of 
administration filed in this court; that the said Richard D. Lamb is the only 
surviving child of the said Ira M. Lamb, sr., and Caroline, his wife. 

II. The original claimant, Ira M. Lamb, died on or about October 31, 1862, the 
said property having been taken in part prior thereto; that said original claim- 
ant died leaving his widow Caroline and three children, of whom the said Rich- 
ard D. Lamb is now the only survivor, Caroline Lamb, the wife.having died since 
said claim was presented to the Southern Claims Commission, Carrie Lamb, one 
of the children, having died in 1867, and Ira M. Lamb, jr., having died in 1SS9; 
that a iiart of said property was taken after the death of said Ira M. Lamb, sr., 
and this claimant, in his own right and aS administrator of Ira M. Lamb, jr., is 
entitled to the same: that the said children were all minors under the age of 21 
years at the time said property was taken, Richard D. Lamb, the oldest, being 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 41 

only 13 years old at the time, and did not give aid or comfort to tlie rebellion, 
but were loyal to the United States Government throughout the war. 

III. That at the time the property was taken as claimed, the said Caroline 
Lamb was the owner of the plantation from which the same was taken, except 
SO acres, which was owned by said Ira M. Lamb ; but that said plantation was, 
by and with the consent of said Caroline, operated and cultivated by the said 
Ira M., who was entitled to the produce thereof, and that the same was taken 
from them by and for the use of the United States Army, to wit : 

3,000 bushels corn in crib $3, 000 

1,000 bushels corn in field 500 

10 tons hay 200 

47,000 rails 2, 348 

10 acres timber 500 

8 mules 1, 400 

6 mares 1, 050 

14 young horses and mules 1, 050 

30 cattle 1, 050 

100 hogs 1, 050 

40,000 feet lumber 1,200 

40,000 bricks 400 

1,300 pounds of bacon 195 

40 acres green corn 480 

Board and care of sick soldiers 468 

Total 14, 891 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDING OF FACT. 

During the war for the suppression of the rebellion there was taken from 
Richard D. Lamb and Ira M. Lamb, jr., heirs of Ira M. Lamb, sr., and from 
Caroline Lamb, wife of Ira M. Lamb, sr., deceased, by the military forces of the 
United States, for the use of the Army, property as above described, which at 
the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of three thousand 
two hundred fifty dollars ($3,250), Richard D. Lamb, for himself and as admin- 
istrator of Ira M. Lamb, jr., being entitled to two thousand one hundred and 
sixty-six dollars and sixty-seven cents ($2,166.67) as the two-thirds share of 
himself and Ira M. Lamb, jr., deceased. 

By THE Court. 

Filed April 2, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 19th day of May, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11295. Estate of Mary Lefevre, deceased, i>. 

The United States.] 

THE UNION TRUST COMPANY, ADMINISTRATOR. 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by 
or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the 
late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, 
finds that Mary Lefevre, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or 
stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal- to the 
Government of the United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed December 19, 1904. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11295. The Union Trust Company, admin- 
istrator of the estate of Mary Lefevre, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have 
been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their 



42 ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN" CLAIMS. 

use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted to 
the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on 
the 4th day of March, 1904. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 19th day of December, 1904, found 
that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom 
they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United 
States throughout said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 22d day of March, 
1905. 

Henry M. Foote, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
John Q. Thompson, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes the following allegations : 

That she is a citizen of the United States, residing in the State of Arkansas, 
and is the administratrix of the estate of Mary Lefevre, deceased, who resided 
during the late war near Little Rock, Pulaski County, in said State ; that on or 
about the 12th day of September, 1863, in the county aforesaid, the United States 
forces, by proper authority, took from decedent quartermaster stores and com- 
missary supplies of the value of $11,617 and appropriated the same to the use 
of the United States Army, as follows : 

40 head of horses, $100 per head $4, 000. 00 

40 head of beef cattle, $12 per head 4S0. 00 

50 head of hogs, $7.50 per head 362. 00 

11 head of sheep, $2.50 per head 27.50 

142 acres corn, 40 bushels per acre, $1 per bushel_I 5, 680.00 

38 tons hay in stack, $30 per ton 540.00 

4 acres potatoes, 50 bushels per acre, $1 per bushel 200. 00 

2,000 pounds bacon, 12J cents per pound 250.00 

60 gallons molasses, 50 cents per gallon 30. 00 

150 pounds sugar, 25 cents per pound . 37.00 

2 barrels salt, $5 per barrel 10.00 

Total 11, 617. 00 

The court, vipon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

There was talven from the claimant's decedent, in the county of Pulaski, 
State of Arkansas, during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the 
military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the 
Army, property of the kind and character above described which was then and 
there reasonably worth the sum of five thousand eight hundred and forty-two 
dollars ($5,842). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

By the Court. 

Filed April 5, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 11th day of January, A. D. 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

JOHN B. LUTTRELL. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10451. John B. Luttrell r. The United States.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by 
or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary 
inquiry, finds that John B. Luttrell, the person alleged to have furnished such 
supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was 
loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed December 4, 1905. 



ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. 43 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 10451. John B. Luttrell v. The United 

States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

Tlie claim in the aboAe-eutitled case, for supplies or stores alleged to have 
been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their 
use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted 
to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives 
on the 14th day of January, 1902. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 4th day of December, 1905, found 
that the per.son alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom 
they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the 
United States throughout said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 15th day of 
May, 1905. 

Henry M. Foote, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the de- 
fense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant, in his petition, makes the following allegations : 

That he is a citizen of the United States, residing in Eldridge, Howard County, 
Ark. ; that at different times during the late war for the suppression of the 
rebellion the United States forces, by proper authority, took from him quarter- 
master stores and commissary supplies of the value of $587.60, and appropri- 
ated the same to the use of the United States Army, as follows : 

By officers and soldiers under command of General Smith, belonging to the 
Fourth Missouri and Seventh Illinois Volunteers : 

1 bay horse mule, value $150.00 

1 sorrel mare mule, value 150.00 

175 bushels corn, value 175.00 

580 binds of fodder, value 11.60 

600 pounds of bacon, value 75.00 

7 bed blankets, value 21.00 

Sundry cooking vessels, value 5.00 



Total 587. 60 

(Taken about the 17th day of January, 1864.) 
The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDING OF FACT. 

During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the 
United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Armj% took from claimant 
in Howard County, State of Arkansas, property as above des^icribed, which, at 
the time and place of taking, was reasonably worth the sum of four hundred and 
eighty dollars ($480). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

By thf, Court. 

Filed December 4, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 11th day of January, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph. 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

HEIRS OF BURNS POLK, SR. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 7669. Burns Polk v. The United States.] 

This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by 
or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the 
late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, 
finds that said Burns Polk, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies 
or stores or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to 
the Government of the United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed December 15, 1890. 



44 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 7669. Maria Polk .Johnston, James Polk, and 
Burns Polk, jr., heirs of Burns Polk, sr., deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim iu the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have 
been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their 
use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted 
to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives 
on the 2Sth day of April, 1S90. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 15th day of Deeeinber, 1S90, found 
that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom 
they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the 
United States throughout said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 29th day of January, 
1907. 

Moyers & Cousaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by James 
A. Tanner, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimants in their petition make the following allegations : 

That petitioners Maria Polk Johnston and James Polk are citizens of the 
United States, residing in the county of Lee, State of Arkansas; that peti- 
tioner Burns Polk is a citizen of the United States, residing in the county of 
Hardeman, State of Tennessee; that petitioners are the children and only 
heirs of Burns Polk, sr., deceased, late of the county of Phillips, State of 
Arkansas. 

That said Burns Polk, sr., was during the late civil war a colored man and 
a slave until freed, and resided in the coimty of Phillips, State of Arkansas; 
that during said war the United States military forces, under proper authority, 
took from said decedent for use of the army quartermaster stores and sup- 
plies of the kinds and values below stated, to wit : 

Taken in summer of 1S62 by order of General Curtis near Marianna, 
Ark., 3 mules, at $200 each $600. 00 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT, 

I. Claimants' decedent, Burns Polk, was during the late civil war a slave, 
being the property of Jackson Polk, and remained loyal to the Government of 
the United States during said war. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion Jackson Polk, who 
resided in Phillips County, State of Arkansas, and the master of the deceased 
claimant herein, Burns Polk, was the owner of the property described in the 
petition, and on the approach of the Federal forces he gave the same to the 
claimant, telling him that he could claim it as his own and get out of it all 
he could for himself. Soon thereafter the military forces of the United States 
took possession of said property for military purposes, the reasonable value 
of which at the time and place of taking was the sum of three hundred dollars 
($300), no part of which appears to have been paid. 

By the Court. 
Filed February 4, 1907. 
A true copy. 

Test this Sth day of February, 1907. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

MANURVIA J. SPAKE, FORMERLY MANURVIA J. ROSS. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11290. Minerva Jane Spake, late Minerva Jane 
Ross, V. The United States.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by 
or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the 
late war for the suppression of tlie rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, 
finds that Minerva Jane Spake, late Minerva Jane Ross, the person alleged to 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 45 

have fiu'uislied such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to 
have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout 
said war. 

By the Court. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11290. Manurvia J. Spake, formerly Manur- 
vla .1. Ross, V. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for supplies or stores alleged to have 
been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their 
use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to 
the court by the Committee on War Claims, House of Representatives, on the 
4th day of March, 1904. 

On a preliminary inquiry, the court, on the 19th day of December, 1904, found 
that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom 
they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United 
States throughout said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 22d day of November, 
1905. 

Henry M. Foote, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
John Q. Thompson, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant, in her petition, makes the following allegations : 

That she is a citizen of the United States, residing at North Point, Pulaski 
County, State- of Ai-kansas; that she resided near Clarksville, Johnson County 
Ark., during the late war of the rebellion ; that at different times during said 
war the United States forces, by proper authoritj', took from her quartermaster 
stores and commissary supplies of the value of $1,990 and appropriated the same 
to the use of the United States Army, as follows : 

4,400 pounds beef (11 head of cows, 400 pounds each), 5 cents . $220 

7,500 pounds pork (50 hogs, 150 pounds each), 10 cents per pound 750 

1 extra fine stable horse 700 

1 extra fine blooded mare 200 

50 bushels corn, at $1 per bushel 50 

20 bushels wheat, at $2 per bushel 40 

60 pounds tobacco, at 50 cents per jjound 30 

Total 1, 990 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel of the respective parties, makes the following 

FINDING OP FACTS. 

There was taken from the claimant, in Johnson County, State of Arkansas, 
during the war for the supression of the rebellion, by the military forces of the 
United States, for the use of the Army, property of the kind and character 
above described, which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of seven 
hundred and eighty dollars ($780), for which no payment appears to have 
been made. 

No allowance is made for the tobacco charged in the petition. 

By the Court. 

Filed December 4, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 11th day of January, 1906. 

[SEAL.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

WILLIAM B. RUTHERFORD. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11314. William B. Rutherford v. The United 

States.] 

This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by 
or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the 



46 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

late war for tlie suppression of the rebellion, tlie court, on a preliminary in- 
quiry, finds that William B. Eutlierford, the person alleged to have furnished 
such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, 
was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 
Filed December 5, 1904. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11314. William B. Rutherford v. The United 

States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have 
been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their 
use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted to 
the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives 
on the 4th day of March, 1904. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 5th day of December, 1904, found 
that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom 
they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government qf the 
United States throughout said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 22d day of March, 1905. 
Henry M. Foote, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
George H. Walker, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations : 

That he is a citizen of the United States, residing in the State* of Arkansas, 
where he resided during the late war of the rebellion. That at different times 
during said period the United States forces, b5^ proper authority, took from him 
quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the value of $1,213.75, and 
appropriated the same to the use of the United States Army, as follows : 

300 bushels corn, at 50 cents per bushel $150. 00 

1 ton hay 20.00 

500 bundles oats, at $2 per hundred bundles 10. 00 

40 head of hogs, 100 pounds each, 10 cents per pound 400. 00 

2 horses, $150 each 300. 00 

1 mare _' 150. 00 

100 bushels corn, at $1 per bushel 100. 00 

1 ton hay 20.00 

100 pounds flour 10. 00 

500 pounds beef, at S cents 40. 00 

100 bushels oats 2. 00 

172 bushels corn, at 50 cents 9.25 

Total 1, 211. 25 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDING OF FACTS. 

There was taken from the claimant, in the county of Washington, State of Ar- 
kansas, during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military 
forces of the United States, for the use of the Army, property of the kind and 
character above described, which was then and there reasonably worth the sum 
of eight hundred and ninety dollars ($890) for which no payment appears to 
have been made. 

By the Court. 

Filed April 5, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 11th day of January, A. D. 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIlsr CLAIMS. 47 

JOHN T. SIFFORD, EXECUTOR. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 1733. Estate of William T. Stone, deceased, v. 

The United States.] 

This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or 
furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the 
late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, 
finds that William T. Stone, deceased, the person alleged to have furnished such 
supplies or stores or from vphom the same are alleged to have been taken, was 
loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 
Filed April 10, 1905. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 1733. John T. Sifford, executor of the estate 
of William T. Stone, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for supplies or stores alleged to have 
been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their 
use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to 
the court by the Committee on War Claims, House of Representatives, on the 
27th day of February, 1887. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 10th day of April, 1905, found that 
the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they 
were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United 
States throughout said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 20th day of November, 
1905. 

Henry M. Foote, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
Charles F. Kincheloe, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations : 

That his decedent, William T. Stone, was a citizen of the United States, 
residing at Camden, Ouachita County, State of Arkansas, where he resided 
during the late war of the rebellion ; that at different times during said period 
the United States forces, by proper authority, took from said decedent, William 
T. Stone, quartermaster stores and commissary supplies to the value of $4,875.10 
and appropriated the same to the use of the United States Army, as follows : 

1,200 bushels corn $1, 800 

10,000 pounds fodder 150 

3,000 pounds bacon 540 

4 mules 540 

2 horses 270 

100 sheep 300 

60 cattle 1/200 

50 bushels wheat '. 75 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argumtots 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDING OF FACT. 

There was taken from the claimant's decedent, in Ouchita County, State of 
Arkansas, during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military 
forces of the United States for the use of the Army, property of the kind and 
character above described, which was then and there reasonably worth the sum 
of two thousand six hundred and forty dollars ($2,640), for which no payment 
appears to have been made. 

By the Court. 

Filed December 4, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 11th day of January, 1906. ' 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims^ 



48 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

CALIPORNIA. 

WILFORD CUBBAGE. 

[In the Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10658. Wilford Cubbage v. The United 

States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of 
May, 1902. The case vpas brought to a hearing on its merits on the 3d day of 
January, 1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and -the Attorney- 
General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, 
appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of 
San Bernardino, in the State of California. 

2. That he, being a corporal and afterwards first sergeant of Company D, 
Seventy-eighth Regiment of Illinois Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed 
or commissioned by the governor of the State of Illinois as first lieutenant 
thereof on September 1, 1864 ; and that from and after said date he assumed 
and performed all the duties of his said grade until November 30, 1864, when 
he was mustered in as such ; said regiment was continuously below the mini- 
mum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no 
other, he was refused muster and recognition in the grade of first lieutenant 
during said period. 

3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allow- 
ances of a corporal and of a first sergeant, although he was in the continuous 
performance of the duties of first lieutenant. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon 
other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. Wilford Cubbage, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United 
States and resident in the county of San Bernardino, in the State of California. 

2. On September 1, 1864, the said Wilford Cubbage was a corporal of Com- 
pany D, Seventy-eighth Regiment Illinois Volunteer Infantry. On that date 
and until he was mustered into the service, to wit, on November 30, 1864, the 
same was and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by Gen- 
eral Orders, No. 182, of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into 
effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., 
p. 734). 

The first lieutenant of said Company D, Seventy-eighth ' Regiment Illinois 
Volunteer Infantry, from and after September 2, 1864, out of service in said 
grade, the duties of first lieutenant devolved upon this claimant, who then and 
thereafter assumed and performed all the duties of first lieutenant of said 
Company D, Seventy-eighth Regiment Illinois Volunteer Infantry, until Novem- 
ber 30, 1864, when he was duly mustered as such. 

The governor of the State of Illinois also issued to this claimant a commis- 
sion as first lieutenant Company D, Seventy-eighth Regiment Illinois Volunteer 
Infantry. 

3. On the said September 2, 1864, the mustering ofiicer then and thereafter 
refused to muster this claimant as first lieutenant of said Company D, Seventy- 
eighth Regiment Illinois Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was 
below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform 
the duties of first lieutenant until he was mustered into the service as such 
aforesaid. 

4. During a portion of the period aforesaid, to wit, from November 20, 1864, 
to November 30, 3864, this claimant employed a servant not enlisted. 

5. During said period this claimant did not draw rations from the Gov- 
ernment. 

6. If the said Wilford Cubbage should be deemed first lieutenant of Com- 
pany D, Seventy-eighth Regiment Illinois Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to 
the pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAHsT CLAIMS. 49 

corporal and first sergeant, wliicli he has received, aud that of a first lieuten- 
ant, to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered for the period 
from September 2, 1864, to November 30, 1S64, would amount to $137.42 with- 
out any deduction being made for income tax, as reported by the Auditor for 
the War Department. 

7. Income tax would amount to $5.72, and, if to be deducted, would leave 
$131.70 (one hundred and thirty-one dollars and seventy cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed January 8, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 17th day of January, 1906. 

[SEAL.] John Randolph, 

AsHstcDif Clerk Court of Claims. 

ANDREW J. GUILFORD. 

.[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10692. Andrew .T. Guilford v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- 
mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 
1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 13tli day of 
November, 1905. 

Messrs. Pennebaker and Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by James A. Turner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, ap- 
peared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the followii;g allegations : 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of 
Alameda, in the State of California. 

2. That he, being the first sergeant of Company F, Eleventh Regiment 
Michigan Volunteer Cavalry, was duly appointed or eonmiissioned by the gov- 
ernor of the State of Michigan as second lieutenant thereof on December 18, 
1864, and that from and after said date he assumed and performed all the 
duties of his said grade until April 23, 1865, when he was mustered in as second 
lieutenant. Said regiment was continuously below the minimum number pre- 
scribed by law and regulation, and for this reason and no other he was refused 
muster and recognition in the grade of second lieutenant during said period. 

3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allow- 
ances of a first sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance of the 
duties of second lieutenant. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon 
other evidence, and upon briefs aud arguments of counsel the court makes the 
following 

T'INDINGS OF FACT. 

1. Apdrew J. Guilford, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United 
States and resident in the county of Alameda, in the State of California. 

2. On December IS, 1864, the said Andrew J. Guilford was first sergeant of 
Company F, Eleventh Regiment Michigan Volunteer Cavalry. On that date 
and until he was mustered into the service, to wit, on April 23, 1865 — the same 
was and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General 
Orders, No. 182, of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect 
section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 734). 

The second lieutenant of said Company F, Eleventh Regiment Michigan Vol- 
unteer Cavalry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the 
duties of second lieutenant devolved upon this claimant, who then and there- 
after assumed and perfoi'med all the duties of second lieutenant of said Com- 
pany F, Eleventh Regiment Michigan Volunteer Cavalry, until April 23, 1865, 
when he was duly mustered in as such. 

The governor of the State of Michigan also issued to this claimant a commis- 
sion as second lieutenant Company F, Eleventh "Regiment Michigan Volunteer 
Cavalry. 

3. On the said December 18, 1864, the mustering officer then and thereafter 
refused to muster this claimant as second lieutenant of said Company F, 
Eleventh Regiment Michigan Volunteer Cavalry, solely because his command 

H. Rep. 543, 60-1 4 



50 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAUST CLAIMS. 

was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, altlionglit tie continued to per- 
form the duties of second lieutenant until he was mustered into the service as 
second lieutenant. 

4. During the period aforesaid, to wit, from December IS, 1804, to April 22, 
3865, this claimant employed one servant, not enlisted. 

5. During said period this claimant did not draw rations from the Govern- 
ment. 

6. If the said Andrew J. Guilford should be deemed second lieutenant of 
Company F, Eleventh Regiment Michigan Volunteer Cavalry, and entitled to 
the pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a first 
sergeant, which he has received, and that of a second lieutenant, to which he 
would have been entitled had he been mustered for the period from December 
18, 1S64, to April 23, 1865, would amount to $547.25, as reported by the Auditor 
for the War Department, without making any deduction for income tax. or for 
rations, which claimant did not draw in kind* 

7. Income tax would amount to $24.48, and if to be deducted would leave 
$522.77. 

Filed November 2, 1905. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 6th day of December, 1905. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

RICHARD N. DOYLE. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-43. Richard N. Doyle v. The United States.] 

STATFJMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- 
mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatises on the 14th day of 
May, 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the ISth day of 
March, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebalcer & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, ap- 
peared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Los 
Angeles, in the State of California. 

2. That he, being the captain of Company H, Eighth Regiment Michigan Vol- 
unteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the 
State of aiichigau as lieutenant-colonel thereof on May 7, 1804, and that from 
and after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade 
until August 11, 1865, when he was mustered out as major ; said regiment was 
continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and 
for this reason, and no other, he was refused muster and recognition in the 
grade of lieutenant-colonel during said period. 

3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay aijd allow- 
ances of a captain and major, although he was in the continuous performance 
of the duties of lieutenant-colonel. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments, and upon 
other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel, the court makes the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. Richard X. Doyle, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the I'nited States 
and resident in the county of Los Angeles, in the State of California. 

2. On May 7, 1S04, the said Itichard N. Doyle was captain of Company H, 
Eighth Regiment Michigan Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was 
jiiustered out of the service, to wit, on August 11, 1805, the same was and contin- 
ued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Order No. 182 of 
the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act 
of Congress api)roved March "3, 1803 (12 Stat. L., p. 734). 

The lieutenant-cojonel of said Eighth Regiment Michigan Volunteer Infantry 
being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of lieutenant- 
colonel devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter asssumed and per- 
formed all the duties of lieutenant-colonel of said Eighth Regiment Michigan 
Volunteer Infantrv. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 51 

The governor of the State of Michigan also issued to this claimant a commis- 
sion as lieutenant-colonel, Eighth Regiment Michigan Volunteer Infantry. 

3. On the said May 7, 1S64, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused 
to muster this claimant as lieutenant-colonel of said Eighth Regiment Michigan 
Volunteeer Infantry solely because his command \\'as below its minimum 
strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of lieutenant- 
colonel until he was mustered out of the service as major, August 11, 1865. 

4. If the said Richard N. Doyle should be deemed lieutenant-colonel of the 
Eighth Regiment Michigan Volunteer Infantry and entitled to the pay of that 
grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a captain and major 
which he has received, and that of a lieutenant-colonel to which he would have 
been entitled had he been mustered for the period from May 7, 1SG4, to August 
11, 1S65, would amount to $307.07 (three hundred and ninety-seven dollars and 
ninety-seven cents), as reported by the Auditor for the War Department, includ- 
ing a short payment of $6.58. 

By the Court. 
Filed March 18, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 
Test this 19th day of March, 1907. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

JOSEPH M. CLARK. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-33. Joseph M. Clark v. The United States..] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of 
May, 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 1st day of 
April, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker and Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, ap- 
peared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of San 
Jose, in the State of California. 

2. That he, being the first sergeant of Company I, Thirty-third Regiment of 
Iowa Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor 
of the State of Iowa as first lieutenant thereof on July 27, 1863, and that from 
and after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade 
until November 2, 1863, when he was mustered in as such; said regiment was 
continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law aiid regulation, 
and for the reason, and no other, he was refused muster and recognition in 
the grade of first lieutenant during said period. 

3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allow- 
ances of a first sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance of the 
duties of first lieutenant. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon 
other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. Joseph M. Clark, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States 
and resident in the county of San Jose, in the State of California. 

2. On July 27, 1863, the said Joseph M. Clark was first sergeant of Company 
I, Thirty-third Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he 
was mustered into the service, to wit, on November 2, 1863, the same was and 
continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Order No. 
182 of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of 
the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863' (12 Stat. L., 734.) 

The first lieutenant of said Company I, Thirty -third Regiment Iowa Volun- 
teer Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties 
of first lieutenant devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter as- 
sumed and performed all the duties of first lieutenant of said Company I, 
Thirty-third Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry, until November 2, 1863. 



52 ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 

The governor of the State of Iowa also issued to this claimant a commission 
as first lieutenant, Company I, Thirty-third Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry. 

3. On the said July 27, 1863, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused 
to muster this claimant as first lieutenant of said Company I, Thirty-third Regi- 
mejit Iowa Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its mini- 
mum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of first 
lieutenant until he was mustered into the service as such November 2, 1863. 

4. If the said Joseph M. Clark should be deemed first lieutenant of Company 
I, Thirty-third Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay of 
that grade, the difLerence between his pay and allowances as a first sergeant, 
which he has received, and that of a first lieutenant without servant, to which 
he would have been entitled had he been mustered for the period from July 27, 
1863, to October 31, 1863, would amount to $184.12 (one hundred and eighty- 
four dollars and twelve cents), as reported bj^ the Auditor for the War Depart- 
ment. 

By the Court. 
Filed April 1, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 
Test this 2d day of April, 1907. 
[SEAL. J John Randolph, 

Asfsistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

JULIA H. CASTLE, DAUGHTER OF JOHN H. HOWE. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-84. Julia H. Castle, daughter of John H. 
Howe, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- 
mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 
1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 11th day of , 
March, 1907. 

Messrs. Peunebaker and Jones appeared for the claimant and the Attorney- 
General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, ap- 
peared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant, in her petition, makes substantially the following allegations : 

1. That she is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of 
Los Angeles, in the State of California, and is the daughter of John H. Howe, 
deceased. 

2. That said John II. Howe, being the lieutenant-colonel of the One hundred 
and twenty-fourth Regiment of Illinois Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed 
or commissioned by the governor of the State of Illinois as colonel thereof on 
December 15, 1863, and that from and after January 14, 1864, the said John H. 
Howe assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until August 16, 
1865, when he was mustered out as lieutenant-colonel ; said regiment was con- 
tinuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and 
for this reason, and no other, said John H. Howe was refused muster and recog- 
nition in the grade of colonel during said period. 

3. That during said period the said John H. Howe was allowed and paid only 
the pay and allowances of a lieutenant-colonel, although he was in the continu- 
ous performance of the duties of colonel. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments, and upon 
other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel, the court makes the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. Julia H. Castle, the claimant of this case, is a citizen of the United States 
and resident of the county of Los Angeles, in the State of California. 

2. On January 14, 1864, John H.^^Howe was lieutenant-colonel of the One hun- 
dred and twenty-fourth Regiment of Illinois Volunteer Infantry. On that date 
and until he was mustered out of the service, to wit, on August 16, 1865, the 
same was and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by Gen- 
eral Order No. 182 of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect 
section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 734). 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 53 

The colonel of said One hundred and twenty-fourth Regiment Illinois Volun- 
teer Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties 
of colonel devolved ui3on said John H. Howe, who then and thereafter assumed 
and performed all the duties of colonel of said One hundred and twenty-fourth 
Regiment Illinois Volunteer Infantry. 

The governor of the State of Illinois also issued to said John H. Howe a 
commission as colonel One hundred and twenty-fourth Regiment of Illinois 
Volunteer Infantry. 

3. On the said January 14, 1864, the mustering officer theu and thereafter 
refused to muster the said John H. Howe as colonel of said One hundred and 
twenty-fourth Regiment of Illinois Volunteer Infantry, solely because his 
command was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he con- 
tinued to perform the duties of colonel until he was mustered out of the service 
as lieutenant-colonel, August 16, 1865. 

4. If the said John H. Howe should be deemed colonel of the One hundred 
and twenty-fourth Regiment of Illinois Volunteer Infantry and entitled to the 
pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a lieuten- 
ant-colonel, which he has received, and that of a colonel, to which he would 
have been entitled had he been mustered from the period from January 14, 1864, 
to August 16, 1865, would amount to $575.93 (Ave hundred and seventy-five 
dollars and ninety-three cents), as reported by the Auditor for the War De- 
partment, including short payment aggregating $29.78. 

By the Court. 
Filed March 11, 1907. 

A true copv of the findings of fact as filed bv the court. 
Test this 13th day of March, 1907. 
[seal.] John R vndolph. 

Assistant CJerh Court of Claims. 

COLORADO. 
JAMES W. HANNA. 

[Court of Claims. No. 12169-85. James ^Y. Hanna r. The United States.] 
STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of 
May, 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 21st day of 
January, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, ai> 
prepared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the fcllowing allegations: 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in -the county of 
Denver, in the State of Colorado. 

2. That he, being the first lieutenant of Company F, Eleventh Regiment of 
Ohio Volunteer Cavalry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor 
,of the State of Ohio as captain thereof on February 27, 1866; and that from 
and after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade 
until July 14, 1866, when he was mustered out as first lieutenant ; said regiment 
was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, 
and for this reason and no other, he was refused muster and recognition in the 
grade of captain during said period. 

3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allow- 
ances of a first lieutenant, although he was in the continuous performance of 
the duties of captain. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon 
other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. James W. Hanna, the claimant in this case, is a citiezu of the United States 
and resident in the county of Denver, in the State of Colorado. 

2. On February 27, 1866, the sai:! claimant was first lieutenant of Company F, 
Eleventh Regiment Ohio Volunteer Cavalry. On that date and until he was 



54 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

mustered out the service, to wit, on July 14, 1866, the same was and continued 
to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Order No. 182 of the 
War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of 
Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 734). 

The captain of said Company F, Eleventh Regiment Ohio Volunteer Cavalry, 
being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of captain de- 
volved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all 
the duties of captain of said Company F, Eleventh Regiment Ohio Volunteer 
Cavalry, until July 14, 1866, when he was mustered out of the service. 

The governor of the State of Ohio also issued to this claimant a commission 
as captain Company L, Eleventh Regiment Ohio Volunteer Cavalry. 

3. On the said February 27, 1866, the mustering officer then and thereafter 
refused to muster this claimant as captain of said Company L, Eleventh Regi- 
ment Ohio oVlunteer Cavalry, solely because his command was below its 
minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties 
of captain until he was mustered out of the service as first lieutenant, as afore- 
said. 

4. During the period aforesaid, to wit, from February 27, 1866, to July 14, 
1866, this claimant employed a servant, not enlisted, for which he has been 
fully paid. 

5. During said period this claimant did not di*aw rations from the Gov- 
ernment. 

6. If the said James W. Hanna should be deemed captain of Company P, 
Eleventh Regiment Ohio Volunteer Cavalry, and entitled to the pay of that 
grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a first lieutenant, 
which he has received, and that of a captain, to which he would have been en- 
titled had he been mustered for the period from February 27, 1866, to July 14, 
1866, would amount to $148.34 without any deduction for income tax, as re- 
ported by the Auditor for the War Department. 

7. Income tax, if to be deducted, would amount to $7.42, leaving balance of 
one hundred and forty dollars and ninety-two cents ($140.92). 

By the Court. 
Filed January 21, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 
Test this 24th day of January, 1907. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

WILLIAM B. PALMER. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-139. William B. Palmer v. The United 

States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- 
mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 27h day of March, 
1906. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 11th day of March, 
1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker and Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- . 
General, by George M. Anderson, esq., his assistant and under his direction, 
appeared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United 
States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of 
Denver, in the State of Colorado. 

2. That he, being the sergeant of Company C, Fifty-third Regiment Illinois 
Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of 
the State of Illinois as second lieutenant thereof on November 13, 1864, and 
that from and after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his 
said grade until March 29, 1865, when he was mustered in as second lieutenant; 
said regiment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law 
and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, he was refused muster and 
recognition in the grade of second lieutenant during said period. 

3. That during said period he was allowed anil i>aid only the pay and allow- 
ances of a sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance of the 
duties of second lieutenant. 



ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. 55 

Upon tlie reports furuislied by the War and Treasury Departments, and upon 
other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel, the court ma lies the 
following 

FINDING qf FACT. 

1. William B. Palmer, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United 
States and resident in the county of Denver, in the State of Colorado. 

2. On November 11, 1864, the said William B. Palmer was sergeant of Com- 
pany C; Fifty-third Regiment Illinois Volunteer Infantry. On that date and 
until he was mustered into the service, to wit, on March 29, 1865, the same was 
and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Order 
No. 182 of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 
of the act of Congress approved March .3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 734). 

The second lieutenant of said Company C, Fifty-third Regimeut Illinois Vol- 
unteer Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the 
duties of second lieutenant devolved upon this claimant, who then and there- 
after assumed and performed all the duties of second lieutenant of said Com- 
pany C, Fifty-third Regiment Illinois Volunteer Infantry. 

The' governor of the State of Illinois also issued to this claimant a commis- 
sion as second lieutenant, Company C, Fifty-third Regiment Illinois Volunteei 
Infantry. 

3. On said November 11, 1864, the mustering officer then and thereafter re- 
fused to muster this claimant as second lieutenant of said Company C, Fifty- 
third Regiment Illinois "N^olunteer Infantry, solely because his command was 
below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the 
duties of second lieutenant until he was mustered into the service as such, 
March 29, 1865. 

4. During the period aforesaid, to wit, from November 11, 1864, to March 29, 
1865, this claimant employed no servant not enlisted. 

5. During said period this claimant did draw rations from the Government. 

6. If the said William B. Palmer should be deemed second lieutenant of Com- 
pany C, Fifty-third Regimeut Illinois Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the 
pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a sergeant, 
which he has received, and that of a second lieutenant, to which he would have 
been entitled had he been mustered for the period from November 11, 1864. to 
March 28, 1865, would amount to three hundred and sixty dollars and sixty-five 
cents ($365.65), as reported by the Auditor for the War Department. 

By the Court. 
Filed March 11, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 
Test this 13th day of March, 1907. 
[SEAL.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

GEORGE T. SHACKELFORD. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-162. George T. Shackelford v. The United 

States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- 
mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 
1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the llth" day of 
March, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker and Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, ap- 
peared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Den- 
ver, in the State of Colorado. 

2. That he, being the lieutenant-colonel of the Sixth Regiment of Kentucky 
Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the govei-nor of the 
State of Kentucky as colonel thereof on July 7, 1863, and that from and after 
said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until Sep- 
tember 1, 1863, when he was mustered in as such. Said regiment was continu- 
ously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this 



56 ALLOWAIsrCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 

reason, and no other, lie was refused muster and recognition in tlie grade of 
colonel during said period. 

3. Tliat during said period lie was allowed and paid only the pay and allow- 
ances of a lieutenant-colonel, although he was in the continuous performance of 
the duties of colonel. * 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon 
other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of coimsel, the court makes the 
following 

FINDINGS or FACT. 

1. George T. Shackelford, the claimant in. this case, is a citizen of the United 
States and resident in the county of Denver, in the State of Colorado. 

2. On July 7, 1863, the said George T. Shackelford was lieutenant-colonel of 
the Sixth Regiment Kentuckj'^ Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he 
was mustered into the service, to wit, on September 1, 1863, the same was and 
continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Orders, No. 
182, of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of 
the act of Congress approved March 3. 1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 734). 

The colonel of said Sixth Eegiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry being 
then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of colonel devolved 
upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all the 
duties of colonel of said Sixth Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry. 

The governor of the State of Kentucky also issued to this claimant a com- 
mission as colonel Sixth Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry. 

3. On the said July 7, 1863, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused 
to muster this claimant as colonel of said Sixth Regiment Kentucky Volunteer 
Infantry, solely because his command was below its minimum strength, as afore- 
said, although he continued to perform the duties of colonel until he was mus- 
tered into the service as such September 1, 1863. 

4. If the said George T. Shackelford should be deemed colonel of the Sixth 
Regiment Kentucky ^'olunteer Infantry and entitled to the pay of that grade, 
the difference between his pay and allowances as a lieutenant-colonel, which he 
has received, and that of a colonel, to which he would ha\e been entitled had he 
been mustered for the period from July 7. 1863. to August 31. 1863, would 
amount to $43.80 (forty-three dollars and eighty cents), as reported by the 
Auditor for the War Department. 

By the Court. 
Filed March 11, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 
Test this 13th day of March. 1907. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

CONNECTICUT. 

JAMES F. BROWN. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-13. James F. Brown v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- 
mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 
1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 22d day of April, 
1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker and Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, ap- 
peared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the I'nited States. 

The claimant, in his petition, makes substantially the following allegations: 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of New 
London, in the State of (Connecticut. 

2. That he being the lieutenant-colonel Twenty-first Regiment of Connecticut 
Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governcn* of 
the State of Connecticut as colonel thereof on October 1, 1864, and that from and 
after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until 
July 6, 1865, when he was mustered out as lieutenant-colonel : said regiment was 
continuously below the minimum number in-escribed by law and regulation, and 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIlir CLAIMS. 57 

for this reason, and no other, he was refused muster and recognition in the 
grade of colonel during said period. 

3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allow- 
ances of a lieutenant-colonel, although he was in the continuous performance 
of the duties of colonel. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon 
other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. James F. Brown, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States 
and resident in the county of New London, in the State of Connecticut. 

2. On October 1, 1864, the said .James F. Brown was lieutenant-colonel of 
the Twenty-first Regiment Connecticut Volunteer Infantry. On that date and 
until he was mustered out of the service, to wit, on July 6, 1865, the same was 
and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Order 
No. 182, of the War Department, of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 
20 of the act of Congress approved IMarch 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 734). 

The colonel of said Twenty-first Regiment Connecticut Volunteer Infantry 
being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of colonel 
devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and performed 
all the duties of colonel of said Twenty-first Regiment Connecticut Volunteer 
Infantry until July 6, 1865. 

The governor of the State of Connecticut also issued to this claimant a com- 
mission as colonel Twenty-first Regiment Connecticut Volunteer Infantry. 

3. On the said October 1, 1864, the mustering officer then and thereafter 
refused to muster this claimant as colonel of said Twenty-first Regiment Con- 
necticut Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its mini- 
mum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of 
colonel until he was mustered out of the service as lieutenant-colonel, July 6, 
1865. 

4. If the said James F. Brown should be deemeiV colonel of the TAventy-first 
Regiment Connecticut ^'olunteer Infantry and entitled to the pay of that grade, 
the difii'erence between his pay and allowances as a lieutenant-colonel which 
he has received, and that of a colonel to which he would have been entitled had 
he been mustered for the period from October 1. 1864, to July 6, 1865, would 
amount to ($262.98) two huntn-ed and sixty-two dollars and ninetj'-eight cents, 
as reported by the Auditor for the War Department. 

By the Court. 
Filed April 22, 1907. 

A true copy of findings of fact as filed by the court. 
Test this 24th day of April, 1907. 
[seal.] .John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

E. W. AND R. H. HUBBELL, EXECUTORS OF JAMES E. HUBBELL. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-73. B. W. HulDbell and R. H. Hubbell, 
executors of James E. Hubbell, deceased, v. The United States.] 

statement of case. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- 
mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 
1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 1st day of April, 
1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker and Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, ap- 
peared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimants in their petition make substantially the following allegations : 

1. That they are citizens of the United States and residents of the county of 
Fairfield, in the State of Connecticut, and are the executors of James E. Hub- 
bell, deceased. 

2. That said James E. Hubbell, being the first sergeant of Company E, Seven- 
teenth Regiment of Connecticut Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or com- 
missioned by the governor of the State of Connecticut as second lieutenant 
thereof on June 24, 1863, and that from and after said date the said James E. 



58 ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 

Hubbell assumed aucl performed all tlie duties of Ills said grade until September 
1, 1865, when be was mustered In as sucb; said regiment was continuously 
below tbe minimum number prescribed by law and regulations, and for this 
reason, and no other, said James E. Hubbell was refused muster and recognition 
in the grade of second lieutenant during said period. 

3. That during said period the said James E. Hubbell was allowed and paid 
only the pay and allowances of a first sergeant, although he was in the con- 
tinuous performance of the duties of second lieutenant. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon 
other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. E. W. Hubbell and R. H. Hubbell, the claimants of this case, are citizens 
of the United States and residents of the county of Fairfield, in the State of 
Connecticut. 

2. On June 24, 1863, James E. Hubbell was first sergeant of Company E, 
Seventeenth Regiment of Connecticut Volunteer Infantry. On that date and 
until he was mustered into the service, to wit, on Sepember 1, 1863, the same 
was and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General 
Order No. 182 of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect 
section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 734). 

The second lieutenant of said Company E, Seventeenth Regiment Connecticut 
Volunteer Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the 
duties of second lieutenant devolved upon said James E. Hubbell, who then 
and thereafter assumed and performed all the duties of second lieutenant of 
said Company E, Seventeenth Regiment Connecticut Volunteer Infantry. 

The governor of the State of Connecticut also issued to said James E. Hub- 
bell a commission as second lieutenant Company E, Seventeenth Regiment of 
Connecticut Volunteer Infantry. 

3. On the said June 24. 1863, the mustering ofiicer then and thereafter re- 
fused to muster the said James E. Hubbell as second lieutenant of said Com- 
pany E, Seventeenth Regiment of Connecticut Volunteer Infantry, solely because 
his command was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he con- 
tinued to perform the duties of second lieutenant until he was mustered into the 
service as such, September 1, 1863. 

4. If the said James E. Hubbell should be deemed second lieutenant of Com- 
pany E, Seventeenth Regiment of Connecticut "S'olunteer Infantry, and entitled 
to the pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a 
first sergeant, which he has received, and that of a second lieutenant, to which 
he would have been entitled had he been mustered from the period from June 24, 
1863, to August 31, 1863, would amount to $109.27 (one hundred and nine dol- 
lars and twenty-seven cents), as reported by the Auditor for the War Depart- 
ment. 

By the Court. 
Filed April 1, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of facts as filed by the court. 
Test this 2d day of April, 1907. 
[seal.] .John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Clahits, 

CHARLES H. SIMMONS. 
[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10788. Charles H. Simmons v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of 
May, 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 7th day of 
January, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, 
appeai'ed for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United 
States. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 59 

Tlie claimant in his petition makes snbstantially the following allegations : 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of 
Windham, in the State of Connecticut. 

2. That he, being the first sergeant of Company H, Eleventh Regiment of 
Connecticut Volunteer Infantry, was dulj^ appointed or commissioned by the 
governor of the State of Connecticut as second lieutenant Company G thereof 
on July 18, 1863, and that from and after said date he assumed and performed 
all the duties of his said grade until August 9, 1863, when he was mustered in 
as such. Said regiment was continuously below the minimum number pre- 
scribed by law and regulation, and for this reason and no other he was refused 
muster and recognition in the grade of second lieutenant during said period. 

3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allow- 
ances of a first sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance of the 
duties of second lieutenant. 

Upon the reports fux*nished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon 
other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel, the court makes the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. Charles H. Simmons, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United 
States and resident in the county of Windham, in the State of Connecticut. 

2. On July 18, 1863, the said Charles H. Simmons was first sergeant of Com- 
pany H, Eleventh Regiment Connecticut Volunteer Infantry. On that date and 
until he was mustered into the service, to wit, on August 9, 1863, the same was 
and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Orders, 
No. 182, of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 
of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., 734), 

The second lieutenant of said Company G, Eleventh Regiment Connecticut 
Volunteer Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the 
duties of second lieutenant devolved upon this claimant, who then and there- 
after assumed and performed all the duties of second lieutenant of said Com- 
pany G, Eleventh Regiment Connecticut Volunteer Infantry, until August 9, 
1863, when mustered in as such. 

The governor of the State of Connecticut also issued to this claimant a com- 
mission as second lieutenant Company G, Eleventh Regiment Connecticut Volun- 
teer Infantry. 

3. On the said July 18, 1863, the jnustering officer then and thereafter refused 
to muster this claimant as second lieutenant of said Company G, Eleventh Regi- 
ment Connecticut Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below 
its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties 
of second lieutenant until he was mustered into the service as such, August 9, 
1863. 

4. During the period aforesaid, to wit, from July 18, 1863, to August 9, 1863, 
this claimant employed no servant not enlisted. 

5. During said period this claimant did draw rations from the Government. 

6. If the said Charles H. Simmons should be deemed second lieutenant of 
Company G, Eleventh Regiment Connecticut Volunteer Infantry and entitled to 
the pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a first 
sergeant, which he has received, and that of second lieutenant, to which he 
would have been entitled had he been mustered for the period from July 18, 
1863, to August 8, 1863, would amount to $39.94, without any deduction for in- 
come tax, as reported by the Auditor for the War Department, including a short 
payment of $3. 

7. Income tax would amount to 69 cents, and if deducted would leave thirty- 
nine dollars and twenty-five cents ($39.25). 

By the Court. 
Filed January 7, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 
Test this 9th day, of January, 1907. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims, 



60 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

ELLA L. DEWEESE, WIDOW OF JOHN T. DEWEESE. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-40. Ella L. Deweese, widow of John T. 
Deweese, deceased, v. The United States.] 



\ 



STATEMENT OF CASE. 



The claim in the above- entitled case was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of 
May, 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 11th day of 
March, 1907. 

Messrs. Peunebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by James A. Turner, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, ap- 
peared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

1. That she is a citizen of the United States and resident of the city of Wash- 
ington, in the District of Columbia, and is the widow of John T. Deweese, 
deceased. 

2. That said John T. Deweese, being the lieutenant-colonel of Fourth Regi- 
ment of Indiana Volunteer Ca.valry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the 
governor of the State of Indiana as colonel thereof on September 10, 1863 ; and 
that from and after said date the said colonel assumed and performed all the 
duties of his said grade until March 11, 1S64, when he was mustered out as 
lieutenant-colonel ; said regiment was continuously below the minimum number 
prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, said John 
T. Deweese was refused muster and recognition in the grade of colonel during 
said period. 

3. That during said period the said John T. Deweese was allowed and paid 
only the pay and allowances of a lieutenant-colonel, although he was in the 
continuous performance of the duties of colonel. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon 
other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. Ella L. Deweese, the claimant of this case, is a citizen of the United States 
and resident of the city of Washington, in the District of Columbia. 

2. On September 10, 1863, John T. Deweese was lieutenant-colonel of Fourth 
Regiment of Indiana Volunteer Cavalry. On that date and until he was mus- 
tered out of the service, to wit, on March 11, 1864, the same was and continued to 
be below the minimum number prescribed by General Order No. 182 of the War 
Department of June 20. 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Con- 
gress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., 734). 

The colonel of said Fourth Regiment Indiana Volunteer Cavalry being then 
and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of colonel devolved upon 
said John T. Deweese, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all the 
duties of colonel of said Fourth Regiment Indiana Volunteer Cavalry. 

The governor of the State of Indiana also issued to said John T. Deweese a 
commission as colonel Fourth Regiment Indiana Volunteer Cavalry. 

3. On the said September 10, 1S63, the mustering officer then and thereafter 
refused to muster the said John T. Deweese as colonel of said Fourth Regiment 
of Indiana A^olunteer Cavalry, solely because his command was below its mini- 
mum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of 
colonel until he was mustered oat of the service as lieutenant-colonel, March 
11, 1864. 

4. If the said John T. Deweese should be deemed colonel of Fourth Regiment 
of Indiana Volunteer Cavalry, and entitled to the pay of that grade, the differ- 
ence between his pay and allowances as a lieutenant-colonel, which he has re- 
ceived, and that of a colonel, to which he would have been entitled had he 
been mustered from the period from September 11, 1863, to March 11, 1864, 
would amount to $155.09 (one hundred and fifty-five dollars and nine cents) 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIISr CLAIMS. 61 

without any deduction for income tax, as reported by the Auditor for the War 
Department, including short payments of $9.67. 

By the Couet. 
Filed March 11, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 
Test this 13th day of March, 1907. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk, Court of Claims. 

BENJAMIN F. HASSON. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-82. Benjamin F. Hasson v. The United 

States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- 
mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 
1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 13th day of May, 
1907. 

Messers. Peunebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, ap- 
peared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the city of Wash- 
ington, in the District of Columbia. 

2. That he, being a private of Company F, Twenty-second Regiment of Penn- 
sylvania Volunteer Cavalry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the gov- 
ernor of the State of Pennsylvania as second lieutenant thereof on May 11, 1864, 
and that from and after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of 
his said grade until September 7, 1S64, when he was mustered in as such ; said 
regiment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and 
regulation, and for this reason and no other he was refused muster and recogni- 
tion in the grade of second lieutenant during said period. 

3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allow- 
ances of a private, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties 
of second lieutenant. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon 
other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. Benjamin F. Hasson, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United 
States and resident in the city of Washington, in the District of Columbia. 

2. On May 11, 1864, the said Benjamin F. Hasson was private of Company F, 
Twenty-second Regiment Pennsylvania Volunteer Cavalry. It does not appear 
from the evidence that on that date and until he was mustered into the service^ 
to wit, on September 7, 1864, the same was and continued to be below the mini- 
mum number prescribed by General Order No. 182 of the War Department of 
June 30, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved 
March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., 734). 

George T. Hammond, the second lieutenant of said Company F, Twenty-second 
Regiment Pennsylvania Volunteer Cavalry, was dismissed from the service Sep- 
tember 21, 1863, while a prisoner of war on the charge of desertion to the enemy, 
and the duties of second lieutenant devolved upon the claimant, who then and 
thereafter assumed and performed all the duties of second lieutenant of said 
Company F, Twenty-second Regiment Pennsylvania Volunteer Cavalry, until 
September 7, 1864, when he wtte mustered in as such. The order dismissing said 
Lieut. George T. Hammond was subsequently revoked, and he was honorably 
discharged from the service, to date, November 29, 1864. 

The governor of the State of Pennsylvania also issued to this claimant a com- 
mission as second lieutenant, Company F, Twenty-second Regiment Pennsylvania 
Volunteer Cavalry. 



62 ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 

3. On the said May 11, 1864, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused 
to muster this claimant as second lieutenant of said Company F, Twenty-second 
Regiment Pennsylvania Volunteer Cavalry, although he continued to perform 
the duties of private until he was mustered into the service as second lieutenant, 
September 7, 1S64. 

4. During the period aforesaid, to wit, from May 11, 1864. to September 7, 
1864, this claimant employed one private servant, not enlisted. 

5. During said period this claimant did not draw rations from the Govern- 
ment. 

6. If the said Benjamin F. Hasson should be deemed second lieutenant of 
Company F. Twenty-second Regiment Pennsylvania Volunteer Cavalry, and 
entitled to the pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances 
as a private, which he has received, and that of a second lieutenant, to which 
he would have been entitled, had he been mustered for the period from May 11, 
1864, to September 6, 1864, would amount to $365.39 (three himdred and sixty- 
five dollars and thirty-nine cents), as reported by the Auditor for the War 
Department. 

By the Coukt. 
Filed May 13, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of facts as filed by the court. 
Test this 16th day of May, 1907. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

HARRISON L. DEAM. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10664. Harrison L. Deam v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of 
May, 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 22d day of 
April, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker and Jones appeared for the claimant and the Attorney- 
General by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, ap- 
peared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially he following allegations : 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the city of Wash- 
ington, in the District of Columbia. 

2. That he, being the captain of Company E, Thirty-fourth Regiment of In- 
diana Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor 
of the State of Indiana as major thereof on March 21, 1865 ; and that from and 
after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until 
January 9, 1866, when he was mustered out as captain ; said regiment was 
continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, 
and for that reason, and no other, he was refused muster and recognition in the 
grade of major during said period. 

3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allow- 
ances of a captain, although he was in the continuous performance of the 
duties of major. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and tipon 
other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. Harrison L. Deam, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United 
States and resident in the city of Washington, in the District of Columbia. 

2. On INIarch 21, 18(55, the said Harrison L. Deam was captain of Company E, 
Thirty-fourth Regiment Indiana \'olunteer Infantry. On that date and until 
he was mustered out the service, to wit, on January 9, 1866, the same was and 
continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Order No. 
182 of the War Dei)artment of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of 
the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 734). 

The major of said Thirty-fourth Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry being 
then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of major devolved 
upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all the 
duties of major of said Thirty-fourth Regiment Indiana ^'olunteer Infanti'y un- 
til mustered out January 9, 1866. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 63 

The governor of the State of Indiana also issued to this claimant a commis- 
sion as major, Thirty-fourth Regiment Indiana 'S'olunteer Infantry. 

3. On the said March 21, 1S66, the mustering officer then and thereafter re- 
fused to muster this claimant as major of said Thirty-fourth Regiment Indiana 
\'olunteer Infantry, solely because his command \yas below its minimum 
strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to jierform the duties of majiu" 
until he was mustered out of the service as captain January 9, 1866. 

4. If the said Harrison I^. Deani should be deemed major of the Thirtj-- 
fourth Regiment Indiana Voimiteer Infantry and entitled to the pay of that 
grade, with one servant, the difference between his pay and allowances as a 
captain, which he has received, and that of a major, to which he would have 
been entitled had he been mustered for the period from ^Nlarch 21, 1S66, to 
January 9, 1860, would amount to one hundred and fifteen dollars and seventy- 
four cents ($115.74), as reported by the Auditor for the War Department, in- 
cluding short iiayments as lieutenant and captain. 

By the Court. 
Filed April 22. 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 
Test this 24th day of April, 1907. 
[SEAt.] John Randolph. 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

rLomDA. 

JOSEPH D. HAZZARD. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-70. Joseph D. Hazzard v. The United 

States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the 'Com- 
mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of ^Nlay, 
1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 18th day of 
March, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant and the Attorney-Gen- 
eral, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assittant and under his direction, appeared 
for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of 
Lake, in the State of Florida. 

2. That he, being the first lieutenant of Company D, Seventy-ninth Regiment 
of Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by 
the governor of the State of Pennsj'lvania as captain thereof on December 20, 
1864 ; and that from and after said date he assumed and performed all the 
duties of his said grade until July 18, 1865, when Le was mustered out as first 
lieutenant; said regiment was continuously below the minimum number pre- 
scribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, he was refused 
muster and recognition in the grade of captain during said period. 

3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allow- 
ances of a first lieutenant, although he was in the continuous performance of 
the duties of captain. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon 
other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. Joseph D. Plazzard, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United 
States and resident in the county of Lake, in the State of Florida. 

2. On December 20, 1864, the said Joseph D. Hazzard was first lieutenant of 
Company D, Seventy-ninth Regiment Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry. On 
that date and until he was mustered out of the service, to wit, on July 18, 1865, 
the same was and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by 
(4eneral Orders No. 182 of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into 
effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863. (12 Stat. L., 
p. 734.) 



64 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

The captain of said Company D, Seveuty-nintli Regiment Pennsylvania Vol- 
unteer Infantry, being tlien and thereafter out of service in said grade, the 
duties of captain devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter as- 
sumed and performed all of the duties of captain of said Company D, Seventy- 
ninth Regiment Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry. 

The governor of the State of Pennsylvania also issued to this claimant a com- 
mission as captain of Company D, Seventy -ninth Regiment Pennsylvania Vol- 
unteer Infantry. 

3. On the said December 20. 1864. the mustering officer then and thereafter 
refused to muster this claimant as captain of said Company D, Seventy -ninth 
Regiment Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was 
below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform 
the duties of captain until he was mustered out of the service as first lieutenant 
July 18, 1865. 

4. If the said Joseph D. Hazzard should be deemed captain of Company D, 
Seventy-ninth Regiment Pennsylvania 'N'olunteei: Infantry, and entitled to the 
pay of that grade, the difterence between his pay and allowances as a first 
lieutenant, which he has received, and that of captain, to which he would have 
been entitled had he been mustered for the period from December 20, 1864, to 
July IS, 1865, would amount to $103.21 (one hundred and six dollars and 
twenty-one cents) as reported by the Auditor for the War Department. 

By the Court. 
Filed :March 18, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 
Test this ibth day of March, 1907. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant CJcrk Court of Claims. 

TELESFOR D. QUIGLES, ADMINISTRATOR. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 0941. Telesfor D. Qnigles, administrator of 
Manette Marsons, deceased, and of her husband, Miguel Qulgles, v. The United 
States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for supplies or stores alleged to have 
been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the I'nited States for their 
use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted 
to the court by a resolution of the House of Representatives on the 21st day of 
February, 1899. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and its merits on the 12th day 
of January, 1903. George A. and William B. King, esqs., appeared for claimant, 
and the Attorney-General, by Charles F. Kincheloe, esq., his assistant and 
under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of 
the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

That he is the administrator of Manette Marsons, deceased, and of her hus- 
band, Miguel Quigles, deceased, appointed on the 7th day of February, 1900, by 
the county court in and for the county of Escambia, and State of Flori;!a : that 
said claimant's decedents were, during the civil war, residents of the State of 
Florida and did not give any aid or comfort to the said rebellion, but were 
throughout that war loyal to the Government of the United States. 

That the following property belonging to claimant's descendent. Manette 
Marsons, ^-as taken from her by the United States Army and used by the said 
Army in Escambia County, State of Florida, on or ab<mt November. 18(>2, by 
Col. Jonathan Tarbell, of the Ninety-first New York Regiment, Major Babcoc, 
Capt. Allen H. Jackson, and IJeut. John Ilulbert. viz: 

40 bedsteads, at $5 $200.00 

50 washstands, at $2 100.00 

80 moss matti-esses, at $5 400.00 

80 feather pillows, at $2 160. 00 

40 feather bolsters, at $3 120.00 

200 cotton sheets, 1,200 yards, at S cents 96.00 

200 cotton pillow slips, 300 yards, at 8 cents 24. 00 

50 mosquito bars, at' 80 cents 40.00 

50 bureaus, at $8 400.00 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 65 

4 wardrobes (mahogany), at $20 $80.00 

3 sideboards, at $30 90.00 

40 small piue tables, at $3 120.00 

5 extension tables, at $25 125.00 

200 cane-bottom cliairs, at $1.-50 300.00 

12 rocking-chairs, at $3 36.00 

48 dozen tumblers, $2 per dozen 96. 00 

120 dozen plates (stoneware), $2 per dozen 240.00 

180 dozen cups and saucers, at $1 per dozen 180. 00 

80 dozen bowls and pitchers, at $1.25 per dozen 100.00 

1,000 j^ards wool carpet, at 60 cents per yard 600. 00 

12 dozen knives and forks, at $5 per dozen 96.00 

12 dozen silver tablespoons, at $10 per dozen 120. 00 

12 dozen silver teaspoons, at $5 per dozen 60. 00 

160 woolen blankets, at $3 480.00 

50 quilts, at $3 150.00 

100 large dishes (stoneware), at 50 cents 50.00 

100 small dishes (stoneware), at 25 cents 25.00 

12 casters, at .$2 : 24.00 

2 dozen cushion-bottom chairs (mahogany) 120.00 

6 dozen cushion-bottom chairs (mahogany), at $6 36.00 

4 mahogany sofas, at $20 80. 00 

1 brussels carpet 40. 00 

3 dozen decanters, at $12 per dozen 36. 00 

2 large silver-plated pitchers, at $10 20.00 

2 large silver-plated sugar stands 10.00 

15 cows and calves, at $15 225.00 

10 hogs, at $4 40.00- 

12 dozen chickens, at $5 per dozen 60.00 

2 horses, at $150 300.00 

3 mule L 150. 00 

1 carriage 100. 00 

] buggy 75. 00 

1 cart 25. 00 

1 large cooking stove 100.00 

25 grates, at $5 . 125.00 

2 large kitchen pine tables, at $2 4.00 

2 dining-room safes, at $15 30.00 

1 set barrom fixtures : 100. 00 

3 barrels of whisky, 126 gallons, at $1 126. 00 

120 gallons American brandy, at 80 cents per gallon 96. 00 

90 gallons French brandy, at $8.50 per gallon 765.00 

1 barrel Holland gin, 112 gallons, at $3 336.00 

12 baskets of champagne (gallon), at $18 per gallon 216.00 

6 dozen bottles of Orgeat, at $9 per dozen 54. 00 

12 dozen bottles claret wine, at $3 per dozen 36.00 

12 dozen bottles pale ale, at $1.50 per dozen 18.00 

12 dozen bottles porter, at $1.50 per dozen 18. 00 

2 dozen bottles bitters, at $11 per dozen 22. 00 

1 barrel of white sugar, at 9 cents per pound 18. 90 

1 barrel Santa Cruz rum, 42 gallons, at $8 126. 00 



8, 029. 90 



The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OP FACT. 

I. There were taken from the claimant's decedent In Escambia County, State 
of Florida, during the war of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United 
States, for the use of the Army, property of the kind and character above 
described which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of four thousand 
three hundred dollars ($4,300), for which no payment appears to have been 

• made. 

II. It appears from the evidence that Manette Marsons was loyal to the Gov- 
ernment of the United States during the war for the suppression of the rebellion. 

H. Rep. 543, 60-1 5 



66 AlrLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. 

III. The claim was not presented to the commissioners of claims or to the 
Southern Claims Commission or the Commissary-General, and no evidence has 
been offered by the claimant under the act of March 3, 18S7, " bearing upon the 
question whether there has been delay or laches in presenting such claim or 
applying for such grant, gift, or bounty, and any facts bearing upon the question 
whether the bar of any statute of limitation should be removed or which shall 
be claimed to excuse the claimant for not having resorted to any established 
legal remedy," except that some effort appears to have been made to collect the 
same, but by whom or in what way does not appear. 

By the Court. 

Filed January 19, 1903. 

A true copy. 

Test this 1st day of December, 1903. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

GEORGIA. 
G. W. AYCOCK, ADMINISTRATOR. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 4795. Reddiek Aycock v. Tlie United States.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by 
or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the 
late war for the suppresion of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, 
finds that Reddiek Aycock, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies 
or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to 
the Government of the United States throughout said war. 

By THE Court. 

Filed October 26, 1903. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 4795. G. W. Aycock, administrator of Red- 
diek Aycock, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have 
been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their 
use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted 
to the court bv the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives 
on the 27th day of June, 1888. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 26th day of October, 1903, found 
that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies, or stores, or from whom 
they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the 
United States throughout said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 23d day of October, 
1905. George A. »&: William B. King, esqs., ap'peared for claimant, and the 
Attorney-General, by Charles P. M. Ashford, esq., his assistant and imder his 
dii'ection, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United 
States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations : 

That he is the administrator of the claimant's decedent, appointed on the 3d 
of October, 1904," by the ordinary court in and for Walton County, State of 
Georgia. 

That the following property belonging to claimant's decedent was taken from 
him by the United States Army, the date, place, and command being particularly 
stated below : 

In Rockdale County, Ga., on or about July 16 and November 16, 1S64, by troops 
of the commands of Generals Gerard and Sherman, U. S. A., to wit: 

1 black mule $150.00 

60 pounds bacon 9.00 

40 pounds lard 6.00 

1 yoke steers 100.00 

18 fat hogs 200.00 

3 cows 75. 00 

5 stock hogs 25.00 

40 bushels wheat 50.00 

102 bushels corn 102.00 

940 bundles fodder 18.80 

24 chickens 6. 00 

Total . 811. 80 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 67 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDING OF FACT. 

There were taken from the claimant's decedent in Eockdale County, Ga., dur- 
ing the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces of the 
United States, for the use of the Army, stores and supplies as above described, 
which at the time and place of taking were reasonably worth the sum of five 
hundred and fifteen dollars ($515). 

It does not appear that any payment has been made for any part thereof. 

By the Court. 

Filed October .30, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this Sth day of February, 1906. 

[SEAL.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims^ 

FANNIE CROW, ADMINISTRATRIX OF LEA'I CROW. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11325. Estate of Levi Crow, deceased, i". The 

United States.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or 
furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use daring the 
late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry,, 
finds that Levi Crow, deceased, the person alleged to have furnished such sup- 
plies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was 
loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed October 30, 1905. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11325. Fannie Crow, administratrix of the 
estate of Levi Crow, deceased, v. The United States.] 

statement of case. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for supplies or stores alleged to have 
been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their 
use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to 
the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on 
the 4th day of March, 1904. 

On a preliminary inquiry, the court, on the 30th day of October, 1905, found 
that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom 
they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United 
States throughout said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the Sth day of April, 1907. 
G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by P. M. 
Ashford, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes the following allegations : 

That she is a citizen of the United States, residing in Paulding County, State 
of Georgia, where her decedent resided during the late civil war. 

That there was taken from her decedent, in Paulding County, State of Geor- 
gia, by the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, and ap- 
propriated to the use of the Army during the late war for the suppression of 
the rebellion, property of the kind and value as follows : 

Item 1. 225 bushels of corn, at $1 $225. 00 

Item 2. 1,500 pounds of fodder, at $1.50 22. 50' 

Items. 1 bay mule 125.00 

Item 4. 1 black mare 100.00' 

Item 5. 1 bay horse 75.00' 

Item 6. 100 pounds of bacon 20.00 

Item 7. 28 hogs, 1,500 pounds 150. 00^ 

Item 8. 800 pounds of beef 85. 00 

Item 9. 12 acres of corn 120.00 

Total 872. 50 



68 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

(Taken by Gen. W. T. Sherman's command in July and September, 1864.) 
Tbe court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

There was taken from the claimant's decedent in Paulding County, State of 
•Georgia, by the military forces of the United States during the late civil war, 
for the use of the Army, property of the kind and character above described, 
which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of seven 
hundred and ten dollars ($710.00). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

By the Court. 

Filed April 22, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 31st day of October, 1907. 

fsEAL.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

JULIA A. CRUSELLE, ADMINISTRATRIX OF WILLIAM H. RICE. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12005. Estate of William A. Rice, deceased, v. 

The United States.] 

This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by 
or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary 
inquiry, finds that William H. Rice, deceased, the person alleged to have fur- 
nished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been 
taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed October 28, 1907. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 12005. Julia A. Crusselle, administratrix of 
estate of William H. Rice, deceased, v. The United States.] 

statement op case. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have 
been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their 
use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to 
the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on 
the 11th day of January, 1906. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 28th day of October, 1907, found 
that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom 
they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United 
States throughout said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 6th day of January, 
1908. 

Brandenburg & Brandenburg, esqs., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by Clark McKercher, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, ap- 
peared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes the following allegations : 

That said William H. Rice, now deceased, during the said war was a resident 
of Fulton County, State of Georgia, and was the owner and possessor in said 
county and State of cei'taiu quartermaster stores and commissary supplies, 
which in the fall of 1864 were seized and appropriated to the use of the military 
forces of the United States then stationed and operating in said locality, accord- 
ing to the following bill of items : 

55 boxes fine tobacco, brand ''Black Navy," weighing 105 pounds 

per box, 5,775 pounds, at $2 per pound $11,550.00 

1 Herrings iron safe 400.00 

3 table counters, at $25 each 75.00 

Fairbanks .3,000-pound scales 30.00 

Counter scales and weights 12.00 

19 boxes farina, or cornstarch, averaging 25 pounds per box, 475 

pounds, at 25 cents 118.75 

1 dwelling house, and building attached, and plank and picket 

fencing -• 2,000.00 

Soap factory, 2 large kettles attached 800.00 

Stock of flour, meal, bacon, and provision on hand in store 300.00 

Total - 15,285.75 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 69 

The court, upon the evidence and after the consideration of briefs and after 
hearing the arguments of the respective counsel, malves the following 

FINDING OF FACT. 

There was taken from the claimant's decedent in Fulton County, State of 
Georgia, by the military forces of the United States during the late civil war, 
for the use of the Army, property of the kind and character described in the 
petition, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum 
of eight thousand one hundred and ninety dollars ($8,190). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

By the Coubt. 

Filed January 13, 1908. 
' A true copy. 

Test this 17th day of January, A. D. 1908. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims, 

[House Report No. 1715, Fifty-eighth Congress, second session.] 
MICHAEL KRIES. 

The Committee on War Claims, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 8994) 
for the relief of Michael Kries, submit the following report : 

This claim is for the value of 4,936 pounds of tobacco furnished General 
Sherman's army at Atlanta, Ga.. in 1864. 

This property was not seized by virtue of military authority, but was taken 
under orders of General Sherman and issued as rations to his soldiers. It was 
accounted for by the quartermaster in his property returns, and he gave a 
voucher for it by packages and numbers and stated the value to be $2 per pound. 

The following history of similar claims, arising at the same time and under 
the same circumstances and orders, is taken from the report of the Southern 
Claims Commission on the subject of tobacco furnished the Army : 

"ToMcco. — Until the act of March 3, 1865, tobacco was not furnished to the 
Army. Under that act it has been issued to those who use it and charged tO' 
them on the pay rolls. 

"In the claims that have come before us tobacco has not usually been re- 
garded as a supply, and therefore has been disallowed. 

" Claims for tobacco alleged to have been taken and issued to the troops at 
Atlanta, Geoi-gia, under the order of General Sherman of September 8, 1864, are 
pending before us. The examination of them is still going on, and they will 
be reported upon hereafter." 

After the capture of Atlanta, in September. 1864, General Sherman found that 
he was short of rations for his army and that the soldiers were subject to many 
privations. To make his army contented, and, as far as possible, to make up to 
them for their usual rations, of which they were for the time deprived, he issued 
an order on the Sth of September, 1864, authorizing the chief commissary of sub- 
sistence to take possession of and issue to the troops all the tobacco in Atlanta 
and give certificates thereof to the owners, to be accounted for in accordance 
with existing orders. 

Pursuant to this order tobacco belonging to George J. Stubblefleld was taken, 
and upon his making claim for payment the Commissary Department recom- 
mended, "As this tobacco was taken by order of General Sherman and issued to- 
the troops in lieu of other rations, and as the loyalty of the claimant is clearly 
established," that payment should be made. This was approved by the Secre- 
tary of War, Mr. Stanton, and the claim was paid. 

The payment stands upon the ground that when an army is deprived of its 
usual rations the commanding general can, in his judgment, authorize an article 
not a supply to be taken and used for the time being as a supply and in lieu of 
other rations « and in such case the Government is bound to pay for it. 

The commissioners of claims followed this precedent and allowed for tobacco 
when taken under General Sherman's order. 

The commissioners of claims, under twelfth ai'ticle of treaty of 8th May, 1871, 
between the United States and Great Britain, adopted the same principle, Hale's 
report to the Secretary of State, November 30, 1873, page 45, showing an award 
only when it was " allowed as an army ration," 



70 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 

Gen. M. R. Morgan, Commissary-General of Subsistence of the United States 
Army, under date of March 3, 1896, says : 

War Department, 
Office Commissary-General of Subsistence, 

Washington, March 3, 1896. 
Respectfully returned to the Secretary of War, with report that the price 
allowed by this Department to George J. Stubblefield, of Atlanta, Ga., for the 
tobacco taken from him by order of General Sherman in September, 1864, was 
$1.50 per pound. 

M. R. Morgan, 
Commissary-General of Subsistence. 
This being a question of barter and sale, the question of the loyalty of Mr. 
Kries should not be an issue. Your committee, however, have made an examina- 
tion upon this pouit and find that Michael Kries, a naturalized citizen, being a 
Frenchman by birth, was loyal. They have, however, adopted as a measure of 
damage $1.50 per pound instead of $2 per pound, as stated in the quartermaster's 
voucher, for the reason that the former amount seems to be a fair price for 
tobacco taken under the above circumstances, as evidenced by the letter of 
Commissary-General of Subsistence Morgan, above quoted. 

Your committee respectfully recommend the passage of the accompanying bill. 

PLYMOUTH FRAZIER, JR. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12384. Plymouth Frazier, jr., v. The United 

States.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by 
or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary 
inquiry, finds that Plymouth Frazier, jr., the person alleged to have furnished 
such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, 
was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed October 22, 1906. 

fCourt of Claims. Congressional, No. 12384. Plymouth Frazier, jr., v. The United 

States.] 

statement of case. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for supplies or stores alleged to have 
been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their 
use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted 
to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives 
on the 16th day of June, 1906. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 22d day of October, 1906, found 
that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom 
they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the 
United States throughout said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 14th day of January, 
1907. 

Ralston & Siddoiis appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

That he is a citizen of the Uiiited States, residing in Liberty County, Ga. : 
that during the war for the suppression of the rebellion he was a resident of 
said State and county, and was loyal to the Government of the United States ; 
that in the month of December. 1864. in said State and county, at or near the 
town of Midway, forces of the United States Army, being General Kil-patrick's 
command of Sherman's army, took from the petitioner for the use of said 
army the following stores and supplies, for which no payment has been made 
or no vouchers or receipts have been given : 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 71 

1 bay mare $150.00 

7 head cattle 140.00 

12 head hogs, $4 each 48. 00 

60 bushels rough rice 90.00 

15 bushels of corn 15. 00 

e beehives of honey 9.00 

10 head of ducks 7.50 

25 head chickens 12.50 

4 dozen eggs 1.00 

Bedding and bedclothes 37.00 

Lot of cooking utensils 10.00 

Total 520. 00 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the arguments and briefs 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDING OF FACT. 

During the wav for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the 
United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took from the 
claimant in Liberty County, Ga., property as above described, which was then 
and there reasonably worth the sum of one hundred and twenty-two dollars 
($122) ; no part of which appears to have been paid. 

By the Court. 

Filed January 21, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 21st day of February, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph. 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

ABRAHAM GREESON. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 3335. Abraham Greeson v. The United States.] 

This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or 
furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the 
late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, 
finds that Abraham Greeson, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies 
or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to 
the Government of the United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed February 4, 1907. 

statement of case. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their use 
during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the 
court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 
30th day of March, 1888. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 4th day of February, 1907, found 
that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom 
they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the 
United States throughout said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 1st day of May, 1907. 

Moyers »& Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
George E. Boren, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant, in his petition, makes the following allegations : 

That he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Gor- 
don, State of Georgia ; that during the late civil war he was a citizen of the 
United States and a resident of said county and State; that during said war the 



72 ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. 

j- 

United States military forces, imder proper auhority, took from him and con- 
verted to tlie use of the United States Army quartermaster stores and commis- 
sary supplies, as follows, to wit : 

Taljen from farm of claimant, near Resaca, Ga., by troops under com- 
mand of General Sherman, in spring of 1864 : 

1 young stallion $300. 00 

100 bushels of corn, at $1.50 per bushel 150. 00 

500 pounds bacon, at 30 cents per pound 150. 00 

Hay and fodder 10.00 

Taken by same command in fall of 1864 : 

200 bushels corn, at $1. 50 per bushel 300. 00 

Total 910. 00 

The court, upon the eA'idence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, njakes the following 

FINDING OF FACT. 

There was taken from the claimant in Gordon County, State of Georgia, dur- 
ing the late civil war by the military forces of the United States for the use of 
the army, property of the kind and character above described, which at the 
time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of four hundred and 
five dollars ($405). 

No payment appears to have been made for any part thereof. 

By the Court. 

Filed May 6, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 20th day of December, 1907. 

[sea.] John Randolph, 

Assistant ClerJc Court of Claims. 

SIBINI JONES. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12289. Sibini Jones v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

This is a claim for property alleged to have been taken by the military forces 
of the United States for the use of the Army. The following bill was referred 
to the court by the House of Representatives Mai-ch 31, 1906, under the act of 
Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act : 

*' [H. R. 4557, Fifty-ninth Congress, first session.] 

" A BILL for the relief of Sahini Jones. 

" Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Reiiresentatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay to Sabini Jones the sum 
of four hundred and eighty-five dollars, in full for property taken by the Union 
Army in April, eighteen hundred and sixty-fi\e, in Pike County, Georgia, out 
of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated." 

The claimant appeared and filed her petition herein July 10, 1906, in which 
she makes the following allegations : 

That she was always a loyal citizen of the United States, and in 1865 lived 
in Pike County, Ga. 

That in April, 1865, the Federal Army, under the command of General Ros- 
seau, came through that part of the country and took from her, for the use 
of the Union Army — 

1 mule and 1 horse of the value of $450 

100 hams of the value of 35 

Total 485 

for which no compensation was ever made to her. 

That as soon as she knew of the passage of the Tucker Act she had a bill 
introduced in the Fifty-eighth Congress. 



ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 73 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on November 4, 1907, 
Ellen Spencer Mussey appearing for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by Clark McKercher, his assistant and under his direction, appearing for the 
defense and protection of the intei'ests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the claimant, Sibini Jones, was loyal 
to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. 

II. There was taken from the claimant in Pike County, Ga., by the military 
forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, 
property of the kind and character described in the petition which was then 
and there reasonably worth the sum of two hundred and fifteen dollars 
($215.00), no part of which appears to have been paid. 

III. The claim herein was never presented to any department of the Govern- 
ment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court under the 
provisions of the Tucker Act as hereinbefore stated, and no reason is given 
why the bar of any statute of limitation should be removed or which shall be 
claimed to excuse the claimant for not having resorted to any established legal 
remedy. 

By the Court. 
Filed November 11, 1907. 
A true copy. 

Test this 2d day of December, A. D. 1907. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

CATHARINE KELTON. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 3782. Catharine Kelton v. The United States.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or 
furnished to the military foi-ces of the United States for their use during the late 
war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, 
finds that Catharine Kelton, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies 
or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to 
the Government of the United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed November 12, 1906. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 3782. Catharine Kelton v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use 
during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the 
court by the Committee on War Claims, House of Representatives, on the (jth 
day of March, 1888. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 12th day of November, 1906, found 
that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom 
they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United 
States throughout said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 11th day of December, 
1906. 

C. A. and F. W. Brandenburg, esqs., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by Malcolm A. Coles, esq., his assistant and under his direction, ap- 
peared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes the following allegations : 

That during the said war she was a resident of Fulton County, State of 
Georgia, and was the owner and possessor on her lot in said county and State of 
certain quartermaster stores and commissary supplies, which in the year of 
3864 were seized and appropriated to the use of the military forces of the United 



74 AT.T.nWA-NrOTC OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

States then stationed and operating in said locality, according to the following 
bill of items : 

Lumber and material of one dwelling house $1, 500 

Lumber and material of one cook kitchen 300 

Lumber and material of one negro kitchen 200 

Lumber of yard fence 50 

Total 2, 050 

The court, upon the evidence and after the consideration of briefs and after 
hearing the arguments of the respective counsel, makes the following 

FINDING OF FACT, 

During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the 
United States, by proper authority, took possession of and used for military 
purposes materials as above described, which were, at the time and place of 
taking, reasonably worth the sum of five hundred dollars ($500), no part of 
which appears to have been paid. 

By the Court. 

Filed December 17, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 4th day of January, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

JOE M. MOON, ADMINISTRATOR. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 9528. Estate of Elijah Pinson, deceased, v. The 

United States.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by 
or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary 
inquiry, finds that Elijah Pinson, deceased, the person alleged to have furnished 
such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, 
was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed February 16, 1903. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 9528. Joe M. Moon, administrator of the 
estate of Elijah Pinson, deceased, v. The United States.] 

statement OF case. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores, alleged to have 
been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their 
use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted 
to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives 
on the 29th day of January, 1S97. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 16th day of February, 1903, found 
that the person alleged to have furnished the supjilies or stores, or from whom 
they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United 
States throughout said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its m&rits on the 19th day of December, 
1904. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for claimant and the Attorney-General, by 
Charles F. Kincheloe, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

That he is a citizen of the Ignited States, residing in Bartow County, State of 
Georgia, where his decedent resided during the late war for the sumn-ession of 
the rebellion; that at different times during said period the United States 
forces, by proper authority, took from his decedent quartermaster stores and 
commissriry supplies of the value of .$1,048.15, and appropriated the same to the 
use of the'United States Army, as follows: 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 75 

1 mule $150. 00 

1 horse 150. 00 

150 bushels of corn 187.50 

5 bushels of corn meal, at $1.25 6.25 

360 pounds of flour, at 8 cents 28. 80 

10 head of hogs, 1,250 pounds, at 8 cents 100. 00 

14 head of hogs, 1,120 pounds, at 8 cents 89. 60 

5 head of beef cattle, 1,250 pounds, at 8 cents 100.00 

800 pounds of bacon, at 20 cents 116.00 

1 two-horse wagon 120.00 

Total 1 1, 048. 15 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

There was taken from the claimant's decedent, in the county of Bartow, 
State of Georgia, during the war of the rebellion, by the military forces of the 
United States, for the use of the Army, property of the kind above described, 
which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of seven hundred and five 
dollars ($705), for which no payment appears to have been made. 

By the Court, 

Filed December 22, 1904. 

A true copy. 

Test this 7th day of January, 1905. 

[SEAL.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

MATILDA J. SJIITH. 

[Coui-t of Claims. Congressional, No. 7474. Matilda J. Smith, widow of Melvin J. 
Smith, V. The United States.] 

This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by 
or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the 
late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, 
finds that Melvin J. Smith, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies 
or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to 
the Government of the United States throughout said war. 



By the Court. 



Filed March 13, 1893. 



[Court of Claims. Congressional ease No. 7474. Matilda .J. Smith, widow of Melvin J. 
Smith, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have 
been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their 
use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to 
the court by the Committee on War Claims, House of Representatives, on the 
nth day of March, 1890. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 13th day of March, 1893, found 
that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom 
they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United 
States throughout said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 22d day of December, 
1904. George A. and William B. King, esq., appeared for claimant, and the 
Attorney-General, by F. De C. Faust, esq., his assistant and under his direction, 
appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes the following allegations : 

That Melvin J. Smith, claimant's decedent, was during the civil war a resi- 
dent of the State of Georgia, and did not give any aid or comfort to the said 
rebellion, but was throughout that war loyal to the Government of the United 
States. 



76 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

That the following property belonging to claimant's decedent was taken from 
him by the United States Army and used by the said Army, the date, place, 
and command being particularly stated below : 

In Whitfleld County, in the State of Georgia, on or about the dates and by 
the United States forces hereinafter mentioned, to wit : 

Taken May 7 or 8, 1864, by General Howard's division : 

1 mare $150. 00 

Pasture of 10 acres of wheat 70. 00 

60 dozen bundles oats 60.00 

Taken in the fall of 1864 by Construction Corps : 

1 cow, 250 pounds, 10 cents per pound 25. 00 

Taken in the fall of 1864 by General Hood's command : 

2 fat hogs, 150 and 100 pounds, respectively 37. 50 

20 bushels of corn 30. 00 

300 feet of good lumber 4. 50 

Total 442.00 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDING OF FACT. 

During the war for the suppression of the rebellion there was taken from the 
claimant's decedent in Whitfield County, State of Georgia, by the military forces 
of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, property as 
above described, which at the time and place was reasonably worth the sum of 
two hundred and ninety-five dollars ($295). No payment appears to have been 
made therefor. 

By the Court. 

Filed January 3, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 16th day of January, 1905. 

[seal.] Archibald Hopkins, 

Chief Cleric. 

S. INMAN, ADMINISTRATOR OF JACOB B. RUSSELL. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12372. S. Inman, administi-ator of Jacob B. 
Russell, deceased, v. The United States.] 

This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by 
or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary 
inquiry, finds that Jacob B. Russell, the person alleged to have furnished such 
supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was 
loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed January 14, 1907. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 12372. S. Inman. administrator of the estate 
of Jacob B. Russell, v. The United States.] 

statement of case. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have 
been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their 
use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted to 
the court bv the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives 
on the 19th day of May, 1906. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 14th day of January, 1907, found 
that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom 
they were alleged to have been taken, Avas loyal to the Government of the 
United States throughout said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 9th day of April, 1907. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 77 

Louis A. Pradt, esq., appeared for claimant, aud the Attorney-General, by W. 
W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the intersts of the United States. 

The claim.int in his petition makes the following allegations : 
That he is the administrator of the estate of Jacob B. Russell, deceased, duly 
appointed by letters of administration, which he brings into court; that peti- 
tioner's decedent, Jacob B. Russell, was, during the late war for the suppres- 
sion of the rebellion, a citizen of the United States residing near Ringgold, in 
the State of Georgia, and did not give any aid or comfort to said rebellion, but 
was loyal throughout that war to the Government of the United States. That 
the following property of the decedent was taken from the possession of said 
decedent upon his farm near said Ringgold in the month of December, 186.3, by 
the military forces of the United States, acting under due authority and for the 
use and benefit of the United States, said forces being a part of the Army of 
the United States under the command of General Sherman, namely : 

7 horses, at $200 $1,400 

1 mule, at $250 250 

4 cows, at $50 200 

15 head of cattle, at $30 450 

4 oxen, at $75 300 

50 sheep, at $5 250 

50 hogs, at $20 1,000 

4,000 pounds of pork and lard, at 20 cents 800 

200 bushels of wheat, at $1.50 300 

1,500 bushels of corn, at $1.25 1, 875 

200 bushels of oats, at $1 200 

30 tons of hay, at $25 750 

15 barrels of flour, at $10 150 

Lumber and shingles sufficient to build a 5-room cottage, the rooms each 

16 feet square 1,000 

Total___ 8,925 

That no payment for said property nor any part of it was then made nor has 
since been made; that the said Jacob B. Russell presented his claim for the 
value of said property to the Southern Claims Commission, who rejected the 
same in 1880 on the ground that they were not satisfied with the sufficiency of 
the evidence in support of the loyalty of the claimant; that on the 19th day of 
May, 1906, the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives of the 
United States referred this claim to the Court of Claims under the provisions 
of the act of March 3, 1883, known as the Bowman Act. This petition was veri- 
fied by the claimant. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the arguments and briefs 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDING OF FACT. 

There was taken from the claimant's decedent in Ringgold County, Ga., during 
the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United 
States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, property of the kind and 
character described in the petition, the reasonable value of which at the time 
and place of taking was the sum of three thousand two hundred and ten dollars 
($3,210.00). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

By the Court. 

Filed April 22, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 27th day of November, A. D. 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



78 AI/LOWANCE or CEETAIN CLAIMS. 

W. C. WALDEOP. ADMINISTRATOR. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12261. W. C. Waldrop, administrator of the es- 
tate of Millington Waldrop, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court March 31, 1906, by resolution of 
the House of Representatives, under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, 
known as the Tucker Act : 

" A BILL For the relief of W. C. Waldrop, administrator of the estate of Millington 

Waldrop, deceased. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, 
and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay W. C. Waldrop, administrator 
of the estate of Millington Waldrop, deceased, late of Paulding County, Georgia, 
out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of five 
thousand dollars, being for stores and supplies alleged to have been furnished 
the Army of the United States during the war for the suppression of the 
rebellion." 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 17th day of 
December, 1906. 

. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the ITuited States. 

The claimant in his petition makes tbe following allegations : 

That he is a citizen of the United States, residing in Paulding County, State 
of Georgia, where his decedent resided during the late war for the suppression 
of the rebellion ; that during said period there was taken from his decedent 
in said county and State by the military forces of the United States, by proper 
authority, property of the kind and value following, and appropriated to the 
use of the Army, to wit : 

Item 1. 30f bushels of corn $30. 75 

Item 2. 3 milk cows 100.00 

Item 3. 1 yoke of oxen 100.00 

Item 4. 20 head of hogs 200.00 

Item 5. 10 head of sheep 20.00 

Item 6. 100 bushels of corn 100.00 

Item 7. 300 pounds of bacon 45. 00 

Item 8. 1 saddle and 1 bridle 15.00 

Item 9. 2 mules 250.00 

Item 10. 3,000 rails 30.00 

Item 11. 25 acres of growing crops, corn, etc 125.00 

Total 1, 015. 75 

(Taken in JNIay, 1864, by General Sherman's command.) 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argu- 
ments of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the claimant's decedent, Millington 
Waldrop, deceased, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- 
out the war for the suppression of the rebellion. 

II. During said war the military forces of the United States, by proper au- 
thority, for the use of the Army, took from claimant's decedent in Paulding 
County, State of Georgia, property as above described, which was then and 
there reasonably worth the sum of six hundred and forty-one dollars ($641), 
uo part of which appears to have been paid. 

III. On the subject of laches, it appears that claimant's decedent presented 
a claim for settlement in 1867, and that an agent was sent to investigate it. 

By the Couet. 
Filed January 14, 1907. 
A true copy. 

Test this 23d day of January, 1907. 
[SEAL.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 79 

ILLINOIS. 
MARTHA J. BOWEN, WIDOW. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-14. Martha J. Bowen, widow of Edwin A. 
Bowen, deceased, c. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day 
of May, 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 21st of 
January, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, ap- 
peared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United 
States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

1. That she is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of 
Lasalle, in the State of Illinois, and is the widow of Edwin A. Bowen, deceased. 

2. That said Edwin A. Bowen, being the lieutenant-colonel of the Fifty-second 
Regiment of Illinois Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned 
by the governor of the State of Illinois as colonel thereof on February 20, 1S64 ; 
and that from and after February 26, 1SG4, the said Edwin A. Bowen assumed 
and performed all the duties of his said grade until October 2G, 1864, when 
he was mustered out as lieutenant-colonel; said regiment was continuously 
below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this 
reason, and no other, said Edwin A. Bowen was refused muster and recogni- 
tion in the grade of colonel during said period. 

3. That during said period the said Edwin A. Bowen was allowed and paid 
only the pay and allowances of a lieutenant-colonel, although he was in the 
continuous performance of the duties of colonel. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon 
other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. Martha J. Bowen, widow of Edwin A. Bowen, deceased, the claimant of this 
case, is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of Lasalle, in 
the State of Illinois. 

2. On February 26, 1864, Edwin A. Bowen was lieutenant-colonel of the 
Fifty-second Regiment of Illinois Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until 
he was mustered out of the service, to wit, on October 24, 1864, the same was 
and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Order 
No. 182 of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 
of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863. (12 Stat. L., p. 734.) 

The colonel of said Fifty-second Regiment Illinois Volunteer Infantry being 
then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of colonel devolved 
upon said Edwin A. Bowen, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all 
the duties of colonel of said Fifty-second Regiment Illinois Volunteer Infantry 
until October 24, 1864, when mustered out as lieutenant-colonel. 

The governor of the State of Illinois also issued to said Edwin A. Bowen a 
commission as colonel Fifty-second Regiment of Illinois Volunteer Infantry, 

3. On the said February 26, 1864, the mustering offlcer then and thereafter 
refused to muster the said Edwin A. Bowen as colonel of said Fifty-second 
Regiment of Illinois Volunteer Infantry solely because his command was below 
its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties 
of colonel until he was mustered out of the service as lieutenant-colonel October 
24, 1864. 

4. If the said Edwin A. Bowen should be deemed colonel of the Fifty-second 
Regiment of Illinois Volunteer Infantry and entitled to the pay of that grade, 
the difference between his pay and allowances as a lieutenant-colonel, which he 
has received, and that of a colonel, to which he would have been entitled had 
he been mustered from the period from February 26, 1864, to October 24, 1864, 
would amount to $221.80, without any deduction for Income tax as reported by 
the Auditor for the War Department, Including short payments of $13.70 er- 
roneuosly deducted for income tax on remuster settlement. 



80 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 

5. Income tax, if to be deducted, would amount to $8.40, leaving a balance of 
two hundred and thirteen dollars and forty cents ($213.40). 

By the Court. 
Filed January 21, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 
Test this 24th day of January, 1907. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

BENNETT DEPENBROCK. 

[In the. Court of Claims. No. 10655, Congressional. Bennett Depenbrock v. The United 

States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASK. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- 
mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 
1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 3d day of Janu- 
ary, 1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant and the Attorney-Gen- 
eral, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, api^ared 
for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Ma- 
rion, in the State of Illinois. 

2. That he, being the chief trumpeter of Company H, Second Regiment of In- 
diana Volunteer Cavalry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor 
of the State of Indiana as second lieutenant thereof on June 30, 1863 ; and that 
from and after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said 
grade until June 22, 1864, when he was mustered in as second lieutenant ; said 
regiment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and 
regulation, and for this reason, and no other, he was refused muster and recog- 
nition in the grade of second lieutenant during said period. 

3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allow- 
ances of a chief trumpeter, although he was in the continuous performance of 
the duties of second lieutenant. 

Upon reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon 
other evidences and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. Bennett Depenbrock, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United 
States and resident in the county of Marion in the State of Illinois. 

II. On June 30, 1863, the said claimant was chief trumpeter of Company H, 
Second Regiment Indiana Volunteer Cavalry. On that date and until he was 
mustered into the service, to wit, on June 22, 1864, the same was and continued 
to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Orders No. 182 of the 
War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of 
Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 734). 

The second lieutenant of said Company H, Second Regiment Indiana Volun- 
teer Cavalry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties 
of second lieutenant devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter as- 
sumed and performed all the duties of second lieutenant of said Company H. 
Second Regiment Indiana Volunteer Cavalry, until mustered into the servicers 
such Jinie 22, 1864. 

The governor of the State of Indiana also issued to this claimant a commis- 
sion as second lieutenant Company H, Second Regiment Indiana ^'olunteer Cav- 
alry. 

III. On the said June 30, 1863, the mustering officer then and thereafter re- 
fused to muster this claimant as second lieutenant of said Company H, Second 
Regiment Indiana Volunteer Cavalry, solely because his command was below its 
minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of 
second lieutenant until he was mustered into the service as such as aforesaid. 

IV. During the period aforesaid, to wit, from June 30, 1863, to June 22, 1864, 
this claimant employed a servant not enlisted. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 8l 

V. During said period this claimant did not draw rations from the Govern- 
ment. 

VI. If the said Bennett Depenbrock should be deemed second lieutenant of 
Company H, Second Regiment Indiana Volunteer Cavalrj% and entitled to the 
pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as chief trumpeter 
which he has received and that of a second lieutenant, to which he would have 
been entitled had he been mustered for the period from June 30, 1863, to June 
22, 1S64, would amount to $952.19, without making any deduction for income tax, 
as reported by the Auditor for the War Department. 

VII. Income tax would amount to $22.39, and, if to be deducted, would leave 
$929.80 (nine hundred and twenty-nine dollars and eighty cents). 

By the Couet. 
Filed January 15, 1906. 
A true copy. 

Test this 17th day of January, 1906. 
[seal.] , John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

THOMAS O. EDDIXS. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-46. Thomas O. Eddins r. The United 

States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- 
mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 
1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the ISth day of 
March, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant and the Attorney-Gen- 
eral, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared 
for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Pike 
in the State of Illinois. 

2. That he. being the sergeant-major, Eighth Regiment of Missouri Volunteer 
Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State of 
Missouri as first lieutenant thereof on September 22, 1863; and that from and 
after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until 
January 14, 1864, when he was mustered in as such ; said regiment was continu- 
ously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this 
reason, and no other, he was refused muster and recognition in the grade of 
first lieutenant during said period. 

3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allow- 
ances of a sergeaut-major although he was in the continuous performance of 
the duties of first lieutenant. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon 
other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. Thomas O. Eddius. the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United 
States and resident in the county of Pike in the State of Illinois. 

2. On September 22, 1863, the said Thomas O. Eddins was sergeant-major of 
the Eight Regiment Missouri Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he 
wai mustered into the service, to wit, on January 14, 1864, the same was and 
continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Order No. 
182 of the AVar Department of June 20. 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of 
the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 734). 

The first lieutenant of said Company I, Eighth Regiment Missouri Volunteer 
Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of 
first lieutenant devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed 
and performed all the duties of first lieutenant of said Company I, Eighth 
Regiment Missouri Volunteer Infantry. 

The governor of the State of Missouri also issued to this claimant a commis- 
sion as first lieutenant Company I, Eighth Regiment Missouri Volunteer In- 
fantry. 

H. Rep. 543, 60-1 6 



82 ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 

3. On the said September 22, 1863. the musteriug officer then and thereafter 
refused to muster this claimant as first lieutenant of said Company I, Eighth 
Regiment Missouri Volunteer Infantrs*, solely because his command was below 
its minimum strength as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties 
of first lieutenant until he was mustered into the service as such, January 14, 
1864. 

4. During the period aforesaid, to wit, from September 23, 1S63, to January 
12, 1864, this claimant employed no servant not enlisted. 

5. During said period this claimant did not draw rations from the Govern- 
ment. 

6. If the said Thomas O. Eddius should be deemed first lieutenant of Company 
I, Eighth Regiment Missouri Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay of 
that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a sergeant-major, 
which he has received, and that of a first lieutenant, to which he would have 
been entitled had he been mustered for the period from September 23, 1S63, to 
Janailry 12, 1864, woiild amount to $227.90 (two hundred and twenty-seven 
dollars and ninety cents), as reported by the Auditor for the War Department. 

By the Court. 
Filed March 18, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 
Test this 19th day of March, 1907. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

MARY J. ELY, WIDOW. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-48. Mary J. Ely, widow of Ben.iamin F. 
Ely, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- 
mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of 
May, 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 21st day of 
January, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant and the Attorney- 
General, by James A. Tanner, esq., bis assistant and under his direction, ap- 
peared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

1. That she is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of 
Coles, in the State of Illinois, and is the widow of Benjamin F. Ely, deceased. 

2. That said Benjamin F. Ely, being the sergeant of Company A, Fifth Regi- 
ment of Ohio Volunteer Cavalry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the 
governor of the State of Ohio as second lieutenant thereof on September 4, 
1865; and that from and after May 1, ]S65, the said Benjamin F. Ely assumed 
and performed all the duties of his said grade until November 14, 1865, when 
he was mustered out as sergeant; said regiment was continuously below the 
minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and 
no other, said Benjamin F. Ely was refused muster and recognition in the grade 
of second lieutenant during said period. 

3. That during said period the said Benjamin F. E]ly was allowed and paid 
only the pay and allowances of a sergeant, although he was in the continuous 
performance of the duties of second lieutenant. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon 
other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. Mary J. Ely, widow of Benjamin F. Ely, the claimant in this case, is a 
citizen of the United States and resident of the county of Coles, in the State of 
Illinois. 

2. On May 1, 1865, Benjamin F. Ely was sergeant of Company A, Fifth Regi- 
ment of Ohio Volunteer Cavalry. On that date and until he was mustered out 
of the service, to wit, on No\-ember 14. 1865. the same was and continued to be 
below the minimum number prescribed by General Orders, No. 182, of the War 
Department of June 20, 1803, carrying into efCect section 20 of the act of Con- 
gress approved March 3. 1863 (12 Stat. L., 734). 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 83 

The second lieutenant of said Company A, Fifth Regiment Ohio Volunteer 
Cavalry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of 
second lieutenant devolved ujDon said Benjamin F. Ely, who then and thereafter 
assumed and performed all the duties of second lieutenant of said Company A, 
Fifth Regiment Ohio Volunteer Cavalry, until November 14. 1865. 

The governor of the State of Ohio also issued to said Benjamin F. Ely a com- 
mission as second lieutenant, Company A, Fifth Regiment of Ohio Volunteer 
Cavalry. 

3. On the said May 1, 1865, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused 
to muster the said Benjamin F. Ely as second lieutenant of said Company A, 
Fifth Regiment of Ohio Volunteer Cavalry, solely because his command was 
below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform 
the duties of second lieutenant until he was mustered out of the service as 
sergeant November 14, 1865. 

6. If the said Benjamin F. Ely should be deemed second lieutenant of Com- 
pany A, Fifth Regiment of Ohio Volunteer Cavalry, and entitled to tlie pay of 
that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a sergeant, which 
he has received, and that of a second lieutenant, to which he would have been 
entitled had he been nuistered from the period of May 1, 1865, to November 14, 
1865, would amount to $259.68 without any deduction for income tax as reported 
by the Auditor for the War Department. 

7. Income tax, if to be deducted, would amount to .$18.28. leaving two hun- 
dred and forty-six dollars and forty cents ($246.40). 

By the Court. 
Filed January 21, 1007. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 
Test this 23d day of January, ]007. 
[seal.] ' John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk ('oiirt of Claims. 

BENJAMIN S. FORD. 

[In the Court of Claims. Congressional. No. 10674. Benjamin S. Ford v. The United 

States. ]- 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- 
mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 
1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 3d dav of Decem- 
ber, 1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant and the Attorney- 
General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, ap- 
peared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the County of 
Tazewell, in the State of Illinois. 

2. That he, being the first sergeant of Company B, Sixth Regiment of Ken- 
tucky Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor 
of the State of Kentucky as second lieutenant thereof on September 21, 1863, 
and as first lieutenant December 31, 1863, and that from and after said dates 
he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grades until May 11, 1864, 
when he was mustered in as first lieutenant; said regiment was continuously 
below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this 
reason, and no other, he was refused muster and recognition in the grades of 
second lieutenant and first lieutenant during said period. 

That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allow- 
ances of a first sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance of the 
duties of second lieutenant and first lieutenant. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon 
other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel, the court makes the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. Benjamin S. Ford, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United 
States and resident in the county of Tazewell, in the State of Illinois. 

2. On September 21, 1863, the said claimant was first sergeant of Company B, 
Sixth Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was 



84 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

mustered out as sucli, to wit, on May 11, 1864, tlie same was aud continued to 
be below the minimum number prescribed by General Order No. 182 of the War 
Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Con- 
gress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 734). 

The second lieutenant of said Company B, Sixth Regiment Kentucky Volun- 
teer Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties 
of second lieutenant devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter 
assumed and performed all the duties of second lieutenant of said Company B, 
Sixth Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry, until promoted to be first lieu- 
tenant December 31, 1863, when he assumed and performed the duties of first 
lieutenant until mustered in as such May 11, 1864. 

The govern6r of the State of Kentucky also issued to this claimant com- 
missions as second lieutenant and first lieutenant Company B, Sixth Regiment 
Kentucky Volunteer Infantry. 

3. On the said September 21 and December 31, 1863, the mustering officer then 
and thereafter refused to muster this claimant as second lieutenant and first 
lieutenant of said Company B, Sixth Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry, 
solely because his command was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, 
although he continued to perform the duties of his respective grades until he 
was mustered in the service as first lieutenant May 11, 1864. 

4. During the period aforesaid, to wit, from September 21, 1863, to May 11, 
1864, this claimant employed no servant not enlisted. 

5. During said period this claimant did not draw rations from the Govern- 
ment. 

6. If the said Benjamin S. Ford should be deemed second lieutenant and first 
lieutenant of Company B, Sixth Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry, and 
entitled to the pay of those grades, the difference between his pay and allow- 
ances as a first sergeant, which he has received, and that of a second lieutenant 
and first lieutenant, to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered 
for the periods from September 21. as second lieutenant, and December 31, 1863, 
as first lieutenant, would amount to $330.43, including $14.99 deducted on a re- 
muster settlement September 29, 1891, as reported by the Auditor for the War 
Department. 

7. Income tax would amount to $7.98 and $14.99, and if these amounts should 
be deducted, the balance would be three hundred and seven dollars and forty-six 
cents ($307.46). 

By the Court. 
Filed December 3, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 
Test this 6th day of December, 1906. 
[SEAL.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claitns. 

JAMES P. FILES AND OTHERS. 

[Court of Claims. No. 10673. James r. Files, son, and Alice White, granddaughter, sole 
heirs of James P. Files, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- 
mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives ou the 14th day of May, 
1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 14th day of Jan- 
uai*y, 1907. 

IVIessrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimants and the Attorney- 
General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, ap- 
peared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimants in their petition make substantially the following allegations: 

1. That they are citizens of the United States and residents of the county of 
Wayne, in the State of Illinois, and are the sole heirs at law of James P. Files, 
deeea sed. 

2. That said James P. Files being the captain of Company H, Fifty-sixth Reg- 
iment Illinois Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the 
governor of the State of Illinois as major thereof on June 23, 1864, and that on 
and after July 7, 1864. the said James P. Files assumed and performed all the 
duties of his said grade until February 15, 1865, when he was mustered in as 
major; said regiment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 85 

by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, said James P. Files 
was refused muster and recognition in the grade of major during said loeriod. 

3. That during said period the said James P. Files was allowed and paid only 
the pay and allowances of a captain, although he was in the continuous per- 
formance of the duties of major. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasuiy Departments and upon 
other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. James P. Files and Alice White, the claimants in this case, are citizens of 
the United States and residents of the county of Wayne, in the State of Illinois. 

2. On July 7, ISGl, James P. Files was captain of Company H, Fifty-sixth 
Regiment Illinois Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was mustered 
into the service, to wit, on February 15, 1865, the same was and continued to be 
below the minimum number prescribed by General Orders, No. 182, of the War 
Department of June 20, 186.3, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Con- 
gress approved March 3, 1862. (12 Stat.' L., 734.) 

The major of said Fifty-sixth Regiment Illinois Volunteer Infantry being 
then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of major devolved 
upon said James P. Files, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all 
the duties of major of said Fifty-sixth Regiment Illinois Volunteer Infantry 
until February 15, 1865, when mustered in. He died in service March 31. 1865. 

The governor of the State of Illinois also issued to said James P. Files a 
commission as major. Fifty-sixth Regiment of Illinois Volunteer Infantry. 

3. On the said July 7, 1864, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused 
to muster the said James P. FilQS as major of said Fifty-sixth Regiment of 
Illinois Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its minimum 
strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of major 
until he was mustered into the service as such, February 15. 1865. 

4. During the period aforesaid, to wit, from July 7, 1864, to February 15, 
1865, the said James P. Files employed one servant, not enlisted. 

5. During said period the said James P. Files did not draw rations from the 
Government. 

6. If the said James P. Files should be deemed major of Fifty-sixth Regiment 
of Illinois Volunteer Infantry and entitled to the pay of that grade, the differ- 
ence between his pay and allowances as a captain which he has received and 
that of a major to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered 
from the period from July 7, 1864, to February 14, 1865, would amount to $80.01 
without any deduction for income tax. as reported by the Auditor for the War 
Department, and including a short payment of $7.84. 

7. Income tax, if to be deducted, would amount to $3.63, leaving a balance of 
seventy-six dollars and thirty-eight cents ($76.38). 

By the Court. 
Filed January 14, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 
Test this 17th day of January, 1907. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

WILLIAM T. GLENN. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-55. William T. Glenn v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on W^ar Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of 
May, 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 11th day 
of March, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, ap- 
peared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the coimty of 
Cook, in the State of Illinois. 



86 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

2. That he, beiug the first sergeant of Company G, Thirty-first Regiment of 
Indiana Vohniteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the gov- 
ernor of the State of Indiana as second lieutenant thereof on Jmie 1, 1865, and 
that from and after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his 
said grade until January 9, 1866, when he was mustered out as first sergeant; 
said regiment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law 
and regulation, and for this reason and no other he was refused muster and 
recognition in the grade of second lieutenant during said period. 

3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allow- 
ances of a first sergeant, although he was in the- continuous performance of the 
duties of second lieutenant. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon 
other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. William T. Glenn, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United 
States and resident in the county of Cook, in the State of Illinois. 

2. On June 1, 1865, the said William T. Glenn was first sergeant of Company 
G, Thirty-first Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until 
he was mustered out of the service, to wit, on January 9, 1866, the same was 
and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Orders, 
No. 182, of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 
of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., 734). 

The second lieutenant of said Company G, Thirty-first Regiment Indiana Vol- 
unteer Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the 
duties of second lieutenant devolved upon this claimant, who then and there- 
after assumed and performed all the duties of second lieutenant of said Com- 
pany G, Thirty-first Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry, until January 9, 1866. 

The governor of the State of Indiana also issued to this claimant a com- 
mission as second lieutenant, Company G, Thirty-first Regiment Indiana Volun- 
teer Infantry. 

3. On the said June 1, 1865, the mustering otficer then and thereafter refused 
to muster this claimant as second lieutenant of said Company 6, Thirty-first 
Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below 
its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties 
of second lieutenant until he was mustered out of the service as first sergeant, 
January 9, 1866. 

4. During the period aforesaid, to wit, from June 1, 1865, to January 9, 1866, 
this claimant employed no private servant, not enlisted. 

5. During said period this claimant did draw rations from the Government. 

6. If the said William T. Glenn should be deemed second lieutenant of Com- 
pany G, Thirty-first Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the 
pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a first ser- 
geant, which he has received, and that of a second lieutenant, to which he would 
have been entitled had he been mustered for the period from June 1, 1865, to 
January 9, 1866, would amount to $334.75 (three hundred and thirty-four dol- 
lars anci seventy-five cents), without any deduction for income tax, as reported 
by the Auditor for the War Department. 

By the Court. 
Filed March 11, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 
Test this 13th day of March, 1907. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

WILLIAM HANNA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-80. William Hauua c. The United States.] 

statement OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the 
Connnittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of 
May. 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 11th day of 
Mai-ch, 1907. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS.. 87 

Messrs. Peuuebaker aud Jones appeared for tiie claimant and tlie Attorney- 
General, by James A. Tanner, esq,, his assistant and under his direction, ap- 
peared for'the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of 
Adams, in the State of Illinois. 

2. That he, being the lieutenant-colonel in command of the Fiftieth Regi- 
ment of Illinois Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by 
the governor of the State of Illinois as colonel thereof on June 11, 1864, and 
that from and after June 19, 1864, he assumed and performed all the duties of 
his said grade until July 13, 1865, when he was mustered out as lieutenant- 
colonel ; said regiment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed 
by law, and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, he was refused muster 
and recognition in the grade of colonel during said period. 

3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allow- 
ances of a lieutenant-colonel, although he was in the continuous performance 
of the duties of colonel. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon 
other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. William Hanna, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States 
and resident in the county of Adams, in the State of Uluois. 

2. On June 19, 1864, the said William Hanna was lieutenant-colonel t)f the 
Fiftieth Regiment Illinois Volunteer Infantry- On that date and until he was 
mustered out of the service, to wit, on July 20. 186.5, the same was and con- 
tinued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Order No. 182 
of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 Of the 
act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 734). 

The colonel of said Fiftieth Regiment Illinois Volunteer Infantry, being 
then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of colonel devolved 
upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed aud performed all the 
duties of colonel of said Fiftieth Regiment Illinois Volunteer Infantry. 

The governor of the State of Illinois also issued to this claimant a commis- 
sion as colonel Fiftieth Regiment Illinois Volunteer Infantry. 

3. On the said June 19, 1864, the mustering officer then aud thereafter re- 
fused to muster this claimant as colonel of said Fiftieth Regiment Illinois Vol- 
unteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its minimum strength, 
as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of colonel until he 
was mustered the service as lieutenant-colonel July 20, 1865. 

4. If the said William Hanna should be deemed colonel of the Fiftieth Regi- 
ment Illinois Volunteer Infantry and entitled to the pay of that grade, the 
difference between his pay and allowances as a lieutenant-colonel, -s^'hich he has 
received, and that of a colonel, to which he would have been entitled had he been 
mustered for the period from June 20, 1864, to July 20, 1865, would amount to 
$395.57 (three hundred and ninety-five dollars and fifty-seven cents), as re- 
ported by the Auditor for the War Department, including a deduction of $2.87 
income tax on remuster. 

By the Court. 
Filed March 11, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 
Test this 13th day of March, 1907. 
[seal.] .John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

ANNIE MAHAR. 

[Court of Claims. No. 10729. Congressional. Annie Mahar," widow (remarried) of 
Theodore S. Loveland v. The United States.] 

statement of case. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- 
mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 
1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 3d day of Jan- 
uary, 1906. 



88 jaAjOWA:scB or certaix claims. 

Messrs. Penueliaker & .Joues appeared for the claimant, auci tlie Attoruey- 
General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, ap- 
peared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

1. That she is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of 
Cook, in the State of Illinois, and is the widow (remarried) of Theodore S. 
Loveland, deceased. 

2. That said Theodore S. Loveland, being the first sergeant of Company F, 
Twenty-second Regiment of Iowa Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or 
commissioned by the governor of the State of Iowa as second lieutenant thereof 
on March 2S, 1864 ; and that from and after said date the said Theodore S. 
Loveland assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until May 2, 
1865, when he was mustered out as first sergeant ; said regiment was continu- 
ously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this 
reason, and no other, said "Theodore S. Loveland was refused muster and recog- 
nition in the grade of second lieutenant during said period. 

3. That during said period the said Theodore S. Loveland was allowed and 
paid only the pay and allowances of a first sergeant, although he was in the 
continuous performance of the duties of second lieutenant. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon 
other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of coimsel the court makes the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FxVCT. 

1. Annie Mahar, widow (remarried) of Theodore S. Loveland, the claimant 
in this case, is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of Cook, 
in the State of Illinois. 

2. On March 28, 1864, Theodore S. Loveland was first sergeant of Company 
F, Twenty-second Regiment of Iowa Volunteer Infantry. On that date and 
until he was mustered out of the service, to wit, on May 2, 1865, the same was 
and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Orders, 
No. 182, of the War Department of .Tune 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 
20 of the act of Congress, approved ISIarch 3, 1S63""(12 Stat. L., p. 734). 

The second lieutenant of said Company F, Twenty-second Regiment Iowa 
Volunteer Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the 
duties of second lieutenant devolved upon said Theodore S. Loveland, who 
then and thereafter assumed and performed all the duties of second lieutenant 
of said Company F, Twenty-second Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry, until 
final discharge, May 2, 1865. 

The governor of the State of Iowa also issued to said Theodore S. Loveland 
a commission as second lieutenant Company F, Twenty-second Regiment of 
Iowa Volunteer Infantry. 

3. On the said INIarch 28, 1864, the mustering oflieer then and thereafter 
refused to inuster the said Theodore S. Loveland as second lieutenant of said 
Company F, Twenty-second Regiment of Iowa Volunteer Infantrj-, solely because 
his command was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he con- 
tinued to perform the duties of second lieutenant until he was mustered out 
of the service as first sergeant, as aforesaid. 

4. During the period aforesaid, to wit, from March 28, 1864, to May 2, 1865, 
the said Theodore S. Loveland employed no servant not enlisted. 

5. During said period the said Theodore S. Loveland did draw rations from 
the Government. 

6. If the said Theodore S. Loveland should be deemed second lieutenant of 
Company F, Twenty-second Regiment of Iowa Volunteer Infantry, and entitled 
to the pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a 
first sergeant, which he has received, and that of a second lieutenant, to which 
he would have been entitled had he been mustered, from the period from 
March 28, 1864, to May 2, 1865, would amount to $590.39. without making any 
deductions for income tax, as reported by the Auditor for the War Department. 

7. Income tax would amount to $28.60, and if to be deducted would leave 
$561.79 (five hundred and sixty-one dollars and seventy-nine cents.) 

By the Court. 
Filed January S, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 
Test this 17th day of January, 1906. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 89 

ORRIN L. MANN. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-116. Orrin L. Mann v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in tile above-eutitled case was transmitted to tlie court by the Com- 
mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 
1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 21st day of 
January, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-Gen- 
eral, by James A, Tanner, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared 
for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Ver- 
milion, in the State of Illinois. 

2. That he, being the lieutenant-colonel of Thirty -ninth Regiment of Illinois 
Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the 
State of Illinois as colonel thereof on June 6, 1S65, and that from and after said 
date he assumed and performed all the duties of May 11, 1S65, grade until 
December 16, 1865, when he was mustered out as lieutenant-colonel : said regi- 
ment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regu- 
lation, and for this reason, and no other, he was refused muster and recognition 
in the grade of colonel during said period. 

3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allow- 
ances of a lieutenant-colonel, although he was in the continuous performance of 
the duties of colonel. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments, and upon 
other evidence, and upon briefs and arguments of counsel, the court makes the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. Orrin L. Mann, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States 
and resident in the county of Vermilion, in the State of Illinois. 

2. On May 11, 1S65, the said Orrin L. Mann, was lieutenant-colonel of Thirty- 
ninth Regiment Illinois Volr.nteer Infantry. On that date and until he was ums- 
tered out of the service, to wit, on December 16, 1805. the same was and con- 
tinued to be below minimum number prescribed 1)y General Orders. No. 182, of 
the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act 
of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 734). 

The colonel of said Thirty-ninth Regiment Illinois Volunteer Infantry being 
then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of colonel devolved 
upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all the 
duties of colonel of said Thirty-ninth Regiment Illinois "^'olunteer Infantry until 
mustered out December 16, 1865. 

The governor of the State of Illinois also issued to this claimant a commission 
as colonel Thirty-ninth Regiment Illinois Volunteer Infantry. 

3. On the said May 11, 1865, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused 
to muster this claimant as colonel of said Twenty -ninth Regiment Illinois Vol- 
unteer Infantrj', soleley because his connuand was below its minimum strength, 
as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of colonel until he was 
mustered out of the service as lieutenant-colonel. 

4. If the said Orrin L. Mann should be deemed colonel of the Thirty-ninth 
Regiment Illinois Volunteer Infantry and entitled to the pay of that grade, the 
difference between his pay and allowances as a lieutenant-colonel, which he has 
received, and that of a colonel, to which he would have been entitled had he 
been mustered for the period from May 11, 1865, to December 16, 1865, would 
amount to $283.35, without any deduction for income tax, as reported by the 
Auditor for the War Department, including a short payment of $9.19. 

5. Income tax, if to be deducted, would amount to $13.70, leaving a balance of 
two hundred and sixty-nine dollars and sixty-five cents ($269.65). 

By THE Court. 
Filed January 21, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 
Test this 24th day of January, 1907. 
[SEAL.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



90 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

JOHN E. MULLALY. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12640-21. John B. Mullaly v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim iu the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- 
mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 16th day of 
June, 1906. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 22d day of 
April, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker «& Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by George M. Anderson, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, 
appeared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of 
Cook, in the State of Illinois. 

2. That he, being the first lieutenant of Company F, Seventeenth Regiment of 
Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the 
governor of the State of Massachusetts as captain thereof on December 29, 1863, 
and that from and after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of 
his said grade until May 13, 1864, when he was mustered in as such ; said regi- 
ment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and reg- 
ulation, and for this reason, and no other, he was refused muster and recogni- 
tion in the grade of captain during said period. He was in like manner duly 
appointed major June 16, 1865, but was refused muster for same reason. 

3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allow- 
ance of a first lieutenant and captain, although he was in the continuous per- 
formance of the duties of captain and major. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon 
other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACTS. 

1. John E. Mullaly, th,e claimant iu this case, is a citizen of the United States 
and resident in the county of Cook, in the State of Illinois. 

2. On December 29, 1863, the said John E. Mullaly was first lieutenant of 
Company F, Seventeenth Regiment Masschusetts Volunteer Infantry. On that 
date and until he was mustered into the service, to wit, on May 13, 1864, the 
same was and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by Gen- 
(:ral Order No. 182 of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into 
effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. I^., 
734). He was appointed major of said regiment June 16, 1865, but refused 
muster for same reason. 

The captain and major of said Seventeenth Regiment Massachusetts Volun- 
teer Infantry being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties 
of captain from December 29, 1863, and major after June 16, 1865, devolved upon 
this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all the duties 
of said grades of Seventeenth Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry. 

The governor of the State of Massachusetts also issued to this claimant a 
commission as captain Company F, and major Seventeenth Regiment Massa- 
chusetts Volunteer Infantry. 

3. On the said December 20, 1863. and June 16, 1865, the mustering officer 
then and thereafter refused to muster this claimant as captain or major of 
Seventeenth Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry solely because his 
command was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued 
to perform the duties of captain and major until he was mustered in as cap- 
tain on May 13, 1864, and mustered out as such July 28, 1865. 

4. If the said John E. Mullaly should be deemed captain, Seventeenth Mas- 
sachusetts Infantry, from December 29, 1863, and major of said regiment from 
June 16. 1865, and entitled to the pay of those grades, the difterence between 
his pay and allowances as a first lieutenant and captain, which he has i-eceived, 
and that of a captain and major, to wliich he would have been entitled had he 
been mustered for the period from December 29, 1863, to July 28, 1865, would 



ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 91 

amount to $99.30 (uiuety-uine dollars and thirty cents), as i-eported by the 
Auditor for the War Department, including a short payment of $24.63. 

By THE Court. 
Filed April 22, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of facts as filed by the court. 
Test this 24th day of April, 1907. 
[seal.] « John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

FANNIE PEMBERTON. 

[In the United States Court of Claims. No. 11171, Congressional. Fannie Pemberton v. 

The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

On December 10, 1901, bill H. R. 5720 was introduced in Congress for the re- 
lief of this claimant, said bill reading as follows : 

[H. R. 5720, Fifty-seventh Congress, first session.] 
" A BILL for the relief of Fannie Pemberton. 

''Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the sum of four thousand dollars 
be, and the same is hereby, appropriated, out of the money in the Treasury not 
otherwise appropriated, to Fannie Pemberton, of Hamilton County, Illinois, 
formerly Fannie Glass, for a wharf boat taken from her by the Army of the 
United States, at Golcouda, Illinois, in the year eighteen hundred and sixty- 
two." 

On the 20th day of February, 1902, House resolution No. IBS, covering bill H. 
R. 5720 for the relief of claimant, was passed, the same being as follows : 

[Resolution No. 138, Fifty-seventh Congress, first session.] 

''Resolved, That the bill (H. R. 5720) for the relief" of Fannie Pemberton, with 
all the accompanying papers, be, and the same is hereby, referred to the Court 
of Claims for a finding of facts under the terms of the act of ^Nlarch third, 
eighteen hundred and eighty-seven, and generally known as the " Tucker Act." 

The claimant appeared and filed her petition in this court July S, 1903, in 
which she makes the following allegations : 

1. That she is a citizen of the United States, and during the period of the 
late war of the rebellion, from 1S61 to 1S65, she was living at Golcouda, 111., and 
was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war, and did 
not give aid or comfort to the enemies of the United States. 

2. That during the year 1862 claimant was the owner of a wharf boat which 
was engaged in active service on the river at said place. That the said wharf 
boat was equipped for service and in first-class condition at that time. That in 
February, 1862, a body of United States troops came to Golcouda from Smith- 
land, Ky., and took possession of claimant's said wharf boat and took the same 
from claimant for the purpose of transporting troops, supplies, guns, etc., for 
the benefit of the United States Army. That said boat was taken, as- claimant 
believes, to Paducah, Ky., and from there to other points, and was never re- 
turned to claimant. 

8. The said wharf boat cost the claimant the sum of $4,000 and was well 
worth that sum of money. That no payment was ever made therefor to the 
claimant or her representatives, and said wharf boat was never returned to 
claimant. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT, 

I. It appears from the evidence that the claimant, Fannie Pemberton, was 
loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war for the sup- 
pression of the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of 
the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took possession 
of a wharf boat belonging to claimant, in Goleonda, State of Illinois, and used 



92 ALLOWANCE OF CEETAUsT CLAIMS. 

the same for the purpose of transporting troops, supplies, etc., and. never re- 
turned the same. Said wharf boat was reasonably worth the sum of four thou- 
sand dollars ($4,000). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

III. It does not appear that any claim was presented to any Department of 
the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court 
under the provisions of the Tucker Act. No evidence has been offered by claim- 
ant under said reference " bearing upon the question whether there has been 
delay or laches in presenting the claim * * * and no facts bearing upon the 
question whether the bar of any statute of limitation should be removed and 
which shall excuse the claimant for not having resorted to any established legal 
remedy." 

By the Court. 

Filed January 9, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 11th day of January, 1905. 

[sEAx.] ' Archibald Hopkins, 

Chief Clerk. 

CARRIE M. PERSONS, EXECUTRIX OF WILLIAM STUBBS. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169. Carrie M. Persons, executrix of William 
Stubbs, deceased, i'. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE, 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 2Tth day of 
March, 1906. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 11th day 
of March, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker and Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, ap- 
peared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

1. That she is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of 
Cook, in the State of Illinois, and is the executrix of William Stubbs, deceased. 

2. That said William Stubbs, being the major of the Eighth Regiment of 
Iowa Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor 
of the State of Iowa as colonel thereof on July 1, 1865 ; and that from and after 
said date the said William Stubbs assumed and performed all the duties of his 
said grade until November 15, 1865, when he was mustered out as major : said 
regiment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and 
regulation, and for this reason, and no other, said William Stubbs was refused 
muster and recognition in the grade of colonel during said period. 

3. That during said period the said William Stubbs was allowed and paid 
only the pay and allowances of a major, although he was in the continuous per- 
formance of the duties of colonel. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon 
other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. Carrie M. Persons, executrix of William Stubbs, deceased, the claimant of 
this case, is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of Cook, 
in the State of Illinois. 

2. On July 1, 1865, William Stubbs was major of the Eighth Regiment of 
Iowa Volunteer Infan.try. On that date and until he was mustered out of the 
service, to wit, on November 15, 1865, the same was and continued to be below 
the minimum number prescribed by General Order No. 182 of the War De- 
partment of June 20, 186.3. carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress 
approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 734). 

The colonel of said Eighth Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry being then 
and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of colonel devolved upon 
said William Stubbs. who then and thereafter assumed and performed all the 
duties of colonel of said Eighth Regiment Iowa "S'olunteer Infantry. 

The governor of the State of Iowa also issued to said William Stubbs a com- 
mission as colonel, Eighth Regiment of Iowa Volunteer Infantry. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 93 

3. On the said July 1, 1S65, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused 
to muster the said William Stubbs as colonel of said Eighth Regiment of Iowa 
Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its minimum 
strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of colonel 
until he was mustered out of the service as major, November 15, 1865. 

4. If the said William Stubbs should be deemed colonel of the Eighth Regi- 
ment of Iowa Volunteer Infantry and entitled to the pay of that grade, the dif- 
ference between his pay and allowances as a major, which he has received, and 
that of a colonel, to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered 
from the period from July 1, 1S65, to November 15, 1865, would amount to 
four hundred and eleven dollars and seventeen cents ($411.17), including short 
payment of $1.50 and 75 cents income tax erroneously deducted, as reported by 
the Auditor for the War Department. 

By the Court. 
Filed March 11, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the coiirt. 
Test this 13th day of March, 1907. 
[seal.] JtjHN Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

NANNIE L. SCHMITT. WIDOW OF VriLLIAM A. SCHMITT. 

[Court of Claims, Congressional. No. 12169-154. Nannie L. Schmitt, widow of William 
A. Schmitt, deceased, v. The United States.] 

stat)<:ment of case. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- 
mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 27th day of March, 
1906. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 11th day of 
March, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by George M. Anderson, esq., his assistant and under his direction, 
appeared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations. : 

1. That she is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of 
Cook, in the State of Illinois, and is the widow of William A. Schmitt, deceased. 

2. That said William A. Schmitt, being a lieutenant-colonel of Twenty-seventh 
Regiment of Illinois Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned 
by the governor of the State of Illinois as colonel thereof on April 28, 1864, and 
that from and after said date the said William A. Schmitt assumed and per- 
formed all the duties of his said grade until September 20, 1864, when he was 
mustered out as lieutenant-colonel; said raiment was continuously below the 
minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no 
other, said William A. Schmitt was refused muster and recognition in the grade 
of colonel during said period. 

3. -That during said period the said William A. Schmitt was allowed and paid 
only the pay and allowances of a lieutenant-colonel, although he was in the con- 
tinuous performance of the duties of colonel. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon 
other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. Nannie L. Schmitt, widow of William A. Schmitt, deceased, the claimant 
of this case, is a citizen of the United States and resident of the countj^ of Cook, 
in the State of Illinois. 

2. On April 28, 1864, William A. Schmitt was lieutenant-colonel Twenty- 
seventh Regiment of Illinois Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he 
was mustered out of the service, to wit, on September 20, 1864, the same was 
and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Order No. 
182, of the War Department of June 30, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of 
the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., 734). 

The colonel of said Twenty-seventh Regiment Illinois Volunteer Infantry 
being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of colonel 
devolved upon said William A. Schmitt, who then and thereafter assumed and 
performed all the duties of colonel of said Twenty-seventh Regiment Illinois 
Volunteer Infantry. 



94 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

The governor of the State of Illinois also issued to said William A. Schmitt a 
commission as colonel Twenty-seventh Regiment of Illinois Yolnnteer Infantry. 

3. On the said April 28, 1864, the mustering officer then and thereafter re- 
fused to muster the said William A. Schmitt as colonel of said Twenty-seventh 
Regiment of Illinois Volunteer Infantry solely because his command was below 
its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the 
duties of colonel until he was mustered out of the service as lieutenant-colonel 
September 20, 1864. 

4. If the said William A. Schmitt should be deemed colonel Twenty-seventh 
Regiment of Illinois Volunteer Infantry and entitled to the pay of that grade, 
the difference between his pay and allowances as a lieutenant-colonel, which he 
has received, and that of a colonel, to which he would have been entitled had 
he been mustered from the period from April 28, 1864, to September 20, 1864, 
would amount to $129.25 (one hundred and twenty-nine dollars and twenty- 
five cents), as reported by the Auditor for the War Department, including short 
payments aggregating $6.72. 

By the Court. 
Filed March 11, 1907. 

A true copv of the findings of fact as filed bv the court. 
Test this 1.3th day of March, 1907. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

JOHN H. STIBBS. 

t Court of Claims. ' Congressional. Nos. 12169-12173. John H. Stibbs v. The United 

States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- 
mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 27th day of 
March, 1906. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 11th day 
of March, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by George M. Anderson, esq., his assistant and under his direction, 
appeared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United 
States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of 
Cook, in the State of Illinois. 

2. That he, being the lieutenant-colonel of the Twelfth Regiment of Iowa 
Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of 
the State of Iowa as colonel thereof on February 11, 1865 ; and that from and 
after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until 
September IS, 1865, when he was mustered in as such : said regiment was con- 
tinuously below the minimum number jirescribed by law and regulation, and 
for this reason, and no other, he was refused muster and recognition in the 
grade of colonel during said period. 

3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allow- 
ances of a lieutenant-colonel, although he was in the continuous performance 
of the duties of colonel. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments, and upon 
other evidence, and upon briefs and arguments of counsel, the court makes the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. John H. Stibbs, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States 
and resident in the county of Cook, in the State of Illinois. 

2. On February 11, 1865, the said John H. Stubbs was lieutenant-colonel of the 
Twelfth Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was 
mustered into the service — to wit, on September 18, 1SG5 — the same was and con- 
tinued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Orders, No. 182, 
of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrving into effect section 20 of the act 
of Congress approved March 3, 1863. (12 Stat. L., p. 734.) 

The colonel of said Twelfth Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantrj' being then and 
thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of colonel developed upon this 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 95 

claimant, who then and thereafter assnmecl and performed all the duties of 
colonel of said Twelfth Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry. 

The governor of the State of Iowa also issued to this claimant a connuission 
as colonel Twelfth Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry. 

3. On the said February 11, 3865, the mustering officer then and thereafter 
refused to muster this claimant as colonel of said Twelfth Regiment Iowa Vol- 
unteer Infantry, solely because his conmiand was below its minimum strength, 
as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of colonel until he 
was mustered into the service as such, September 18, 1865. 

4. If the said John H. Stibbs should be deemed colonel of the Twelfth Regi- 
ment Iowa Volunteer Infantry and entitled to the pay of that grade, the differ- 
ence between his pay and allowances as a lieutenant-colonel which he has re- 
ceived and that of a colonel to which he would have been entitled had he been 
mustered for the period from February 11, 1865, to September 17, 1865, would 
amount to $216.18 (two hundred and sixteen dollars and eighteen cents) as re- 
ported by the Auditor for the War Department, including an erroneous stoppage 
of $1.78 'tax. 

By the Court. 
Filed March 11, l!l07. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as Hied by the court. 
Test this 13th day of March, ie/f)7. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

JOHN J. VINCENT. 

[Court of Claims. CongTessional, No. 11175. John J. Vincent v. The United States.] 

By resolution of the House of Representatives of April 1, 1902, Fifty-seventh 
Congress, first session, this case was referred to this court for findings of fact 
in accordance with the terms of section 14 of the act approved March 3, 1887, 
commonly known as the Tucker Act, said resolution reading as follows: 

''Resolved, That the bill (H. R. 1764) for the relief of John J. Vincent, with 
all the accompanying papers, be, and the same is hereby, referred to the Court 
of Claims for a finding of facts under the terms of the act of March third, 
eighteen hundred and eighty-seven, and generally known as the Tucker Act." 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 29th day of 
January, 1906. 

R. W. Haynes appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Charles 
F. Kincheloe, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the de- 
fense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following- allegations : 

That he is a citizen of Williamson County, 111. ; that at the time of the break- 
ing out of the late war of the rebellion he was a resident of Dry Run, Tisho- 
mingo County, ?*Iiss., 9 miles northwest of Booneville, Miss. ; that he was" loyal 
to the Government of the United States from the commencement of said war 
until its close; that in the month of October, 1862, a portion of the Seventh 
Kansas Cavalry was encamped at Rienzi, in said Tishomingo County, and im- 
pressed claimant, together with a mule owned by claimant, into the services of 
said cavalry to guide and inspect the country ; that on returning to camp from 
said guide and inspection duty said mule was taken from him and appropriated 
by said cavalry and never returned to claimant; claimant was told that it 
would be reported to Quartermaster's Department, and that he would receive a 
voucher and pay therefor, but he never received any pay or compensation what- 
soever for the use and loss of said mule. 

, On the 5th day of November, 1862, cavalry belonging to the Seventh Kansas 
and Fifth Ohio Regiments became engaged in a skirmish fight with some guer- 
rillas in the northwest portion of said. Tishomingo Comity, Miss., and claimant 
and his wagon and two yoke of oxen were impressed into service to carry the 
remains of a wounded Union soldier some 12 miles, and after returning to camp 
his wagon and oxen were appropriated to the service of the United States 
troops. That the two yoke of oxen (consisting of four steers) were from 5 to 
6 years old, good-sized cattle, and in good condition, and that the soldiers of 
said regiments butchered them for beef, and they were used by the Quarter- 
master's Department for the purpose of feeding the Union soldiers encamped at 
and around Rienzi, Miss. 



96 ALLOWAK-CE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

That afterwards, to wit, the 15th of November, 1862, the Fifth Ohio Cavalry 
encamped at Camp Davis, iu said Tishomingo County, Miss., came to claimant's 
house and took 14 bushels of corn. When claimant asked for pay, he was told 
by the Federal troops that they would report it to the Quartermaster's Depart- 
ment. 

The claimant avers that the property so taken was valued as follows : 

One mule $200.00 

One wagon taken 50.00 

Two yoke of oxen 200.00 

Fourteen bushels of corn, at 60 cents a bushel 8.40 

Total 458. 40 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDING OF FACTS. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the claimant was loyal to the Govern- 
ment of the United States during the war of the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion, in Tishomingo 
County, State of Mississippi, the military forces of the United States, by proper 
authority, for the use of the Army, took property of the kind and character 
described iu the petition, the property of the claimant, which at the time and 
place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of two hundred and eighty-two 
dollars ($282), for which no payment appears to have been made. 

By the Cotjet. 
Filed February 5, 1906. 
A true copy. 

Test this 13th day of February, 1906. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

INDIANA. 
LEWIS J. BLAIR. 

[Court of Claims. CoDgressional, No. 12169-5. Lewis J. Blair v. The United States.} 

statement of case. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of 
May, 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 22d day of 
April, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker and Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, 
appeared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of 
Dekalb, in the State of Indiana. 

2. That he. being the major of the Eighty-eighth Regiment of Indiana Vol- 
unteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the 
State of Indiana as lieutenant-colonel thereof on October 30, 1863 ; and that 
from and after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said 
grade until June 14. 1865, when he was mustered out as major; said regiment 
was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regula- 
tion, and for this reason, and no other, he Avas refused muster and recognition 
in the grade of lieutenant-colonel during said period. 

3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allow- 
ances of a major, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties 
of lieutenant-colonel. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon 
other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of coiuisel, the court makes the 
following 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. - 97 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. Lewis J. Blair, the claimant in tliis case, is a citizen of the Ignited States 
and resident in the county of Deljalb, in the State of Indiana. 

2. On October 30, 1863, the said Lewis J. Blair was major of Eighty-eighth 
Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was mus- 
tered out of the service — to wit, on June 14, 1865, the same was and continued 
to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Order No. 182 of the 
War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of 
Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 734). 

The lieutenant-colonel of said Eighty-eighth Regiment Indiana Volunteer In- 
fantry being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of 
lieutenant-colonel devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter as- 
sumed and performed all the duties of lieutenant-colonel of said Eighty-eighth 
Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry. 

The governor of the State of Indiana also issued to this claimant a commis- 
sion as lieutenant-colonel Eighty-eighth Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry. 

3. On the said October 30, 1863, the mustering officer then and thereafter 
refused to muster this claimant as lieutenant-colonel of said Eighty-eighth 
Regiment Indiana A'olunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below 
its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the 
duties of lieutenant-colonel until he was mustered out of the service as major 
June 14, 1865. 

4. If the said Lewis J. Blair should be deemed lieutenant-colonel of the 
Eighty-eighth Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry and entitled to the pay of 
that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a major, which he 
has received, and that of a lieutenant-colonel, to which he would have been 
entitled had he been mustered for the period from October 30, 1863, to June 14, 
1865, would amount to $434.14 (four hundred and thirty-four dollars and four- 
teen cents), as reported by the Auditor for the War Department, including 
$1.41 income tax deducted on remuster. 

By the Court. 
Filed April 22, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed bv the court. 
Test this 24th day of April, 1907. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

SARAH E. SMITH AND GEORGE W. BROWNE, HEIRS OF THOMAS M. 

BROWNE. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-9. Sarali E. Smith and George W. 
Browne, brother and sister and sole heirs of Thomas M. Browne, deceased, v. The 
United States. ] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- 
mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 
1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 1st day of April, 
1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, ap- 
peared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimants in their petition make substantially the following allegations : 

1. That they are citizens of the United States and residents of the county of 
Randolph, in the State of Indiana, and are the brother and sister and sole heirs 
of Thomas M. Browne, deceased. 

2. That said Thomas M. Browne, being the lieutenant-colonel of Seventh 
Regiment of Indiana Volunteer Cavalry, was duly appointed or commissioned 
by the governor of the State of Indiana as x^olonel thereof on October 10, 1865 ; 
and that from and after said date the said Thomas M. Browne assumed and per- 
formed all the duties of his said grade until March 14, 1866, when he was mus- 
tered out as lieutenant-colonel ; said regiment was continuously below the mini- 
mum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no 
other, said Thomas M. Browne was refused muster and recognition in the grade 
of colonel during said period. 

H. Rep. 543, 60-1 7 



98 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

3. That during said period the said Thomas M. Browne was allowed and paid 
only the pay and allowances of a lientenant-colonel, although he was in the con- 
tinuous performance of the duties of colonel. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon 
other evidence, and upon briefs and arguments of counsel, the court makes the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. Sarah E. Smith and George W. Browne, the claimants of this case, are 
citizens of the United 'States and residents of the county of Randolph, in the 
State of Indiana. 

2. On October 10, 1S65, Thomas M. Browne was lieutenant-colonel of Seventh 
Regiment of Indiana Volunteer Cavalry. On that date and until he was mus- 
tered out of the service, to wit, on March 14, 1866, the same was and continued 
to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Orders, No. 182, of the 
War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of 
Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., 734). 

The colonel of said Seventh Regiment Indiana Volunteer Cavalry being then 
and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of colonel developed upon 
said Thomas M. Browne, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all 
the duties of colonel of said Seventh Regiment Indiana Volunteer Cavalry 
until he was mustered out as lieutenant-colonel, March 14, 1866. * 

The governor of the State of Indiana also issued to said Thomas M. Browne 
a commission as colonel Seventh Regiment of Indiana Volunteer Cavalry. 

3. On the said October 10, 1865, the mustering officer then and thereafter 
refused to muster the said Thomas M. Browne as colonel of said Seventh Regi- 
ment of Indiana Volunteer Cavalry solely because his command was below its 
minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties 
of colonel until he was mustered out of the service as lieutenant-colonel, March 
14, 1866. 

4. If the said Thomas M. Browne should be deemed colonel of Seventh Regi- 
ment of Indiana Volunteer Cavalry and entitled to the pay of that grade, the 
difference between his pay and allowances as a lieutenant-colonel, which he has 
received, and that of a colonel, to which he would have been entitled had he 
been mustered from the period from October 10, 1865, to March 14, 1866, would 
amount to $202.84 (two hundred and two dollars and eighty-four cents), as 
reported by the Auditor for the War Department. 

By the Couet. 
Filed April 1, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 
Test this 2d day of April, 1907. 
[SEAL.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

WILLIAM G. DUDLEY. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-35. William G. Dudley v. Tlie United 

States.] 

statement of case. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of 
May, 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 22d day 
of April, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker and Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, ap- 
peared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant, in his petition, makes substantially the following allegations: 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of 
Sullivan, in the State of Indiana. 

2. That he, being the first sergeant of Company D, Thirty-first Regiment of 
Indiana Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the 
governor of the State of Indiana as second lieutenant thereof on June 1, 1865, 
and that from and after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of 
his said grade until January 9, 1866, when he was mustered out as first sergeant ; 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 99 

said regiment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by 
law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, he was refused muster 
and recognition in the grade of second lieutenant during said period. 

3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allow- 
ances of a first sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance of 
the duties of second lieutenant. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments, and 
upon other evidence, and upon briefs and arguments of counsel, the court makes 
the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. William G. Dudley, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United 
States and resident in the county of Sullivan, in the State of Indiana. 

2. On June 1, 1S65, the said William G. Dudley was first sergeant of Company 
D. Thirty-first Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until 
he was mustered out of the service, to wit, on January 9, 1866, the same was 
and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Order 
No. 182, of the War Department, of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 
of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 734). 

The second lieutenant of said Company D, Thirty-first Regiment Indiana 
Volunteer Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, 
the duties of second lieutenant devolved upon this claimant, who then and 
thereafter assumed and performed all the duties of second lieutenant of said 
Company D, Thirty-first Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry, until mustered 
out as first sergeant January 9, 1866. 

The governor of the State of Indiana also issued to this claimant a com- 
mission as second lieutenant Company D, Thirty-first Regiment Indiana Volun- 
teer Infantry. 

3. On the said June 1, 1865, the mustering officer then and thereafter re- 
fused to muster this claimant as second lieutenant of said Company D, Thirty- 
first Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was 
below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the 
duties of second lieutenant until he was mustered out of the service as first 
sergeant January 6, 1866. 

4. During the period aforesaid, to wit, from June 1, 1865, to January 9, 1866, 
this claimant employed no servant not enlisted. 

5. During said period this claimant did not draw rations from the Govern- 
ment. 

6. If the said William G. Dudley should be deemed second lieutenant of 
Company D, Thirty-first Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry, and entitled 
to the pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a 
first sergeant which he has received and that of a second lieutenant, to which 
he would have been entitled had he been mustered for the period from June 
1, 1865, to January 9, 1866, would amoinit to $381.87 (three hundred and eighty- 
one dollars and eighty-seven cents), as reported by the Auditor for the War 
Department. 

By the Court. 
Filed April 22, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 
Test this 24th day of April, 1907. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

JOHN W. FOLAND. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-50. John W. Foland v. The United States.] 

statement of case. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- 
mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 
1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 11th day of 
March, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, ap- 
peared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 



100 ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Mad- 
ison, in the State of Indiana. 

2. That he, being the first sergeant of Company E, Thirty-fourth Regiment 
Indiana Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the gov- 
ernor of the State of Indiana as first lieutenant thereof on June 1, 1865, and 
that from and after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his 
said grade until February 20, 1866, when he was mustered out as first ser- 
geant ; said regiment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed 
by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, he was refused muster 
and recognition in the grade of first lieutenant during said period. 

3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allow- 
ances of a first sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance of the 
duties of first lieutenant. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments, and upon 
other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel, the court makes the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. John W. Foland, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States 
and resident in the county of jMadison, in the State of Indiana. 

2. On June 1, 1865, the said John W. Foland was first sergeant of Company E, 
Thirty-fourth Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until 
he was mustered out of the service, to wit, on February 20, 1866, the same was 
and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Order 
No. 182 of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 
20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863. (12 Stat. L., 734.) 

The first lieutenant of said Company E, Thirty-fourth Regiment Indiana 
Volunteer Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the 
duties of first lieutenant devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter 
assumed and performed all the duties of first lieutenant of said Company E, 
Thirty-fourth Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry. 

The governor of the State of Indiana also issued to this claimant a commis- 
sion as first lieutenant. Company E, Thirty-fourth Regiment Indiana Volun- 
teer Infantry. 

3. On the said June 1, 1865, the mustering ofiicer then and thereafter re- 
fused to muster this claimant as first lieutenant of said Company E, Thirty- 
fourth Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was 
below its minimum strength as aforesaid, although he continued to perform 
the duties of first lieutenant until he was mustered out of the service as first 
sergeant, February 20, 1866. 

4. During the period aforesaid, to wit, from June 1, 1865, to February 20, 
- 1866, this claimant employed no servant not enlisted. 

5. During said period this claimant did draw rations from the Govern- 
ment. 

6. If the said John W. Foland should be deemed first lieutenant of Company 
E, Thirty-fourth Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the 
pay of that grade, the difference lietween his pay and allowances as a first 
sergeant, which he has received, and that of a first lieutenant, to which he 
would have been entitled had he been mustered for the period from June 1, 
1865, to February 20, 1866, would amount to $477.04 (four hundred and seventy- 
seven dollars and four cents), as reported by the Auditor for the War De- 
partment. 

By the Court. 
Filed March 11, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 
Test this 13th day of IMarch, 1907. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims, 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIIST CLAIMS. 101 

ANDREW G. GORRELL. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 106S7. Andrew G. Gorrell v. The United 

States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- 
mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 
1902. The case wrs brought to a hearing on its merits on the 13th day of 
November, 1905. 

Messrs. Pennebaker and Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, ap- 
peared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of 
Wells, in the State of Indiana. 

2. That he, being the first sergeant of Company A, Thirty-fourth Regiment of 
Indiana Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the gov- 
ernor of the State of Indiana as second lieutenant thereof on September 1, 1865 ; 
and that from and after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of 
his said grade until February 20, 1866, when he was finally discharged as first 
sergeant ; said regiment was continuously below the minimum number pre- 
scribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, he was refused 
muster and recognition in the grade of second lieutenant during said period. 

3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allow- 
ances of first sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance of the 
duties of second lieutenant. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments, and upon 
other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel, the court makes the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. Andrew G. Gorrell, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United 
States and resident in the county of Wells, in the State of Indiana. 

2. On September 1, 1865, the said Andrew G. Gorrell was first sergeant of 
Company A, Thirty-fourth Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry. On that date 
and until he was discharged the service, to wit, on February 20, 1866, the same 
was and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General 
Orders, No. 182, of the War Department, of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect 
section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 734). 

The second lieutenant of said Company A, Thirty-fourth Regiment Indiana 
Volunteer Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the 
duties of second lieutenant devolved upon this claimant, who then and there- 
after assumed and performed all the duties of second lieutenant of said Com- 
pany A, Thirty-fourth Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry, until February 20, 
1866, when he was finally discharged. 

The governor of the State of Indiana also issued to this claimant a commis- 
sion as second lieutenant. Company A, Thirty-fourth Regiment Indiana Volun- 
teer Infantry. 

3. On the said September 1, 1865, the mustering oflicer then and thereafter 
refused to muster this claimant as second lieutenant of said Company A, 
Thirty-fourth Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry, solely because his com- 
mand was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to 
perform the duties of second lieutenant until he was discharged the service as 
first sergeant as aforesaid. 

4. During the period aforesaid, to wit, from September 1, 1865, to February 
20, 1866, this claimant employed no servant not enlisted. 

5. During said period this claimant did draw rations from the Government. 

6. If the said Andrew G. Gorrell should be deemed second lieutenant of Com- 
pany A, Thirty -fourth Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to 
the pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a 
first sergeant, which he has received, and that of a second lieutenant, to 
which he would have been entitled had he been mustered for the period from 
September 1, 1865, to February 20, 1866, would amount to $264.71, without 
deduction of $25 bounty and $16.20 income tax, as reported by the Auditor for 
the War Department. 



102 ALLOWANCE or CERTAIIsr CLAIMS. 

7. Income tax would amount to $16.20, and if to be deducted would leave 
$248.51. 

By the Court. 
Filed November 10, 1905. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 
Test this 6th day of December, 1905. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk, Court of Claims. 

SILAS GRIMES. 
[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-54. Silas Grimes v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- 
mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 
1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the ISth day of 
March, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, ap- 
peared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : _ 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of 
Monroe, in the State of Indiana. 

2. That he, being the captain of Company G, Thirty-first Regiment Indiana 
Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of 
the State of Indiana as major thereof on November 22, 1864, and that from 
and after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade 
until January 7, 1SG5, when he was mustered in as such. Said regiment was 
continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and 
for this reason, and no other, he was refused muster and recognition in the 
grade of major during said period. He was also commissioned lieutenant- 
colonel March 1.3, 1S65, but never mustered in for same reason. 

3. That during said ])eriod he was allowed and paid only the pay and allow- 
ances of a captain and major, although he was in the continuous performance 
of the duties of major and lieutenant-colonel. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon 
other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel, the court makes the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. Silas Grimes, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States 
and resident in the county of Monroe, in the State of Indiana. 

2. On November 22, 1864, the said Silas Grimes was captain of Company G, 
Thirty-first Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry, and on March 13, 1865, he 
was major. On those dates and until he was mustered into the service, to wit, 
as major on January 7, 1865, the same was and continued to be below the mini- 
mum number prescribed by General Order No. 182 of the War Department of 
June 20, 1863, carrving into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved 
March 3, 1863. (12 Stat. L., p. 734.) 

The major and lieutenant-colonel of said Thirty-first Regiment Indiana Vol- 
unteer Infantry being then and thereafter out of service in said grades the 
duties of major and lieutenant-colonel devolved upon this claimant, who then 
and thereafter assumed and performed all the duties of major and lieutenant- 
colonel of said Thirty-first Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry imtil he was 
mustered in as major Januarv 7, 1865, and mustered out as such January 9, 
1866. 

The governor of the State of Indiana also issued to this claimant a commis- 
sion as major and lieutenant-colonel Thirty-first Regiment Indiana Volunteer 
Infantry. 

3. On the said dates the mustering oflicer then and thereafter refused to 
muster this claimant as major and lieutenant-colonel of said Thirty-first Regi- 
ment Indiana Volunteer Infantry solely because his command was below its 
minimum strength as aforesaid, although he continued to peform the duties 
of major and lieutenant-colonel until he was mustered out of the service asf 
major January 9, 1866. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIl^ CLAIMS. 103 

4. If the said Silas Grimes should be deemed major and lientenaut-colonel 
of the Thirty-first Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry and entitled to the 
pay of those grades the difference between his pay and allowances as a cap- 
tain, which he has received, and that of a major, to which he would have been 
entitled had he been mustered for the period from November 22, 1864, to Janu- 
ary 6, 1S65, and between major and lieutenant-colonel from March 13, 18G5, and 
January 9, 1866, amount to $288.37 (two hundred and eighty-eight dollars and 
thirty-seven cents), as reported by the Auditor for the War Department. 

By the Coukt. 

Filed March 18, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 19th day of March, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

JOHN W. HEADINGTON. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-86. John W. Headington v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Committee 
on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 27th day of March, 1906. The 
case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 11th day of March, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker and Jones appeared for the claimant and the Attorney-General, 
by his assistant and under liis direction, appeared for the defense and the protection of 
the interests of the United States. 

The claimant, in his petition, makes substantially the following allegations: 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of Jay, in the 
State of Indiana. 

2. That he, being the captain and major, One hundredth Regiment of Indiana Vol- 
unteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State of 
Indiana as major and lieutenant-colonel thereof on June 1, 1864, and May 21, 1865, 
respectively; and that from and after said dates he assumed and performed all the 
duties of his said grades until May 16, 1865, when mustered in as major, and on June 
19, 1865, when he was mustered out as major; said regiment was continuously below 
the minimum number prescribed bylaw and regulation, and for this reason, and no 
other, he was refused muster and recognition in the grade of major and lieutenant- 
colonel during said periods. 

3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances 
of a captain and major, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties 
of major and lieutenant-colonel. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other 
evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. John W. Headington, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States 
and a resident in the county of Jay, in the State of Indiana. 

2. On June 1, 1864, the said John W. Headington was captain, and on May 21, 
1865, he was major, One hundredth Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry. On 
those dates and until he was mustered out of the service as major, to wit, on June 19, 
1865, the same was, and continued to be, below the minimum number prescibed by 
General Order No. 182 of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect 
section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L. , p. 734). 

The major and lieutenant-colonel of said One hundredth Regiment Indiana Volun- 
teer Infantry being then and thereafter out of service in said grades, the duties of 
major and lieutenant-colonel devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter 
assumed and performed all the duties of major and lieutenant-colonel of said One 
hundredth Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry until May 16, 1865, when mus- 
tered into service as major, and June 19, 1865, when mustered out as such. 

The governor of the State of Indiana also issued to this claimant commissions as 
major and lieutenant-colonel, One hundredth Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry. 

3. On the said June 1, 1864, and May 21, 1865, the mustering officer then and there- 
after refused to muster this claimant as major and lieutenant-colonel of said One 
hundredth Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was 
below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties 
of major and lieutenant-colonel until he was mustered into the service as major, May 
16, 1865, and mustered out as such, June 19, 1865. 



104 ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 

4. If the said John W. Headington should be deemed major and lieutenant-colonel 
of the One hundredth Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry and entitled to the pay 
of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a captain and major, 
which he has received, and that of a major and lieutenant-colonel, to which he would 
have been entitled had he been mustered for the period from June 1, 1864, to May 16, 
1865, as major, and from May 21, 1865, to June 19, 1865, as lieutenant-colonel, would 
amount to $194.19 (one hundred and ninety-foiu' dollars and nineteen cents), as 
reported by the Auditor for the War Department, including a short payment of $42.80 
as captain. 

By the Court. 

Filed March 11, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 13th day of March, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

HIRAM HINES. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-76. Hiram Hines v. The United States.] 
STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the coiu-t by the Committee 
on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The 
case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 11th day of March, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant and the Attorney-General, 
by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Hamil- 
ton, in the State of Indiana. 

2. That he, being the first sergeant of Company H, Fifty-seventh Regiment of 
Indiana Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor 
of the State of Indiana as second lieutenant thereof on June 1, 1865, and that from 
and after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until Jan- 
uary 3, 1866, when he was mustered out as first sergeant. Said regiment was continu- 
ously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this 
reason, and no other, he was refused muster and recognition in the grade of second 
lieutenant during said period. 

3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances of 
a first sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of second 
lieutenant. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other 
evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. Hiram Hines, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and resi- 
dent in the county of Hamilton, in the State of Indiana. 

2. On June 1^ 1865, the said Hham Hines was first sergeant of Company H, Fifty- 
seventh Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was mus- 
tered out of the service, to wit, on January 3, 1866, the same was and continued to be 
below the minimum number prescribed by General Order No. 182 of the War Depart- 
ment of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved 
March 3, 1863. (12 Stat. L., 734.) 

The second lieutenant of said Company H, Fifty-seventh Regiment Indiana_ Vol- 
unteer Infantry, Ijeing then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of 
second lieutenant devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed 
and performed all the duties of second lieutenant of said Company H, Fifty-seventh 
Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry, until January 3, 1866. 

The governer of the State of Indiana also issued to this claimant a commission as 
second lieutenant Company H, Fifty-seventh Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry. 

3. On the said Juno 1, 1865, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to 
muster this claimant as second lieutenant of said Company H, Fifty-seventh Regi- 
ment Indiana Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its mini- 
mum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of second 
lieutenant until he was mustered out of the service as first sergeant, January 3, 1866. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIISr CLAIMS. 105 

4. If the said Hiram Hines should be deemed second lieutenant of Company H, 
Fifty-seventh Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay of that 
grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a fu-st sergeant, which he has 
received, and that of a second lieutenant, to which he would have been entitled had 
he been mustered for the period from June 1, 1865, to January 3, 1866, would amount 
to $309.45 (three hundred and nine dollars and forty-five cents), as reported by the 
Auditor for the War Department. 

By the Court. 

Filed March 11, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 13th day of March, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

CYRUS J. McCOLE. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 121G9-130. Cyrus J. McCole v. The United States.] 
STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the comt by the Committee 
on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 27th day of March, 1906. The 
case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 11th day of March, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker and Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his dhection, appeared for the 
defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: • 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Hamilton, 
in the State of Indiana. 

2. That he, being the major of the Seventy-fifth Regiment of Indiana Volunteer 
Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State of In- 
diana as lieutenant-colonel thereof on April 1, 1864, and that from and after said date 
he assumed and performed all the duties of his said gi-ade until June 16, 1865, when 
he was mustered out as major. Said regiment was continuously below the minimum 
number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, he was 
refused muster and recognition in tha grade of lieutenant-colonel during said period. 

3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances of 
a major, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of lieutenant- 
colonel. 

Upon the reports fm-nished by the War and Treasiuy Departments and upon other 
evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the comt makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. Cyrus J. McCole, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and 
resident in the county of Hamilton, in the State of Indiana. 

2. On April 1, 1864, the said Cyrus J. McCole was major of the Seventy-fifth Regi- 
ment Indiana Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was mustered out of 
the service, to wit, on June 16, 1865, the same was and continued to be below the 
minimum number prescribed by General Order No. 182 of the War Department of 
June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 
1863 (12 Stat.' L., p. 734). 

The lieutenant-colonel of said Seventy-fifth Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry 
being then and thereafter out of ser^dce in said gi-ade, the duties of lieutenant-colonel 
devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all 
the duties of lieutenant-colonel of said Seventy-fifth Regiment Indiana Volunteer 
Infantry. 

The governor of the State of Indiana also issued to this claimant a commission as 
lieutenant-colonel Seventy-fifth Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry. 

3. On the said April 1, 1864, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to 
muster this claimant as lieutenant-colonel of said Seventy-fifth Regiment Indiana 
Volunteer Infantry solely because his command was below its minimum strength, as 
aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of lieutenant-colonel until he 
was mustered out of the service as major, June 16, 1865. 

4. If the said Cyrus J. McCole should be deemed lieutenant-colonel of the Seventy- 
fifth Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry and entitled to the pay of that grade, the 
difference between his pay and allowances as a major, which he has received, and that 
of a lieutenant-colonel to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered for 



106 ALLOWAlsrCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

the period from April 1, 1864, to June 16, 1865, would amount to $330.44 (three hun- 
dred and thirty dollars and forty-four cents), as reported by the Auditor for the War 
Department. 

By the Court. 
Filed March 11, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 
Test this 13th day of March, 1907. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

LEONARD H. MAHAN. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-123. Leonard H. Malian v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Commit- 
tee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 11th day of March, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker and Jones appeared for the claimant and the Attorney-General, 
by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Vigo, in 
the State of Indiana. 

2. That he, being the first sergeant of Company C, Thirty-first Regiment of Indiana 
Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the 
State of Indiana as second lieutenant thereof on May 1, 1864; and that from and after 
April 12, 1864, he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until June 
25, 1864, when he was mustered in as first lieutenant; said regiment was continuously 
below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and 
no other, he was refused muster and recognition in the grade of second lieutenant 
during said period. 

3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances of 
a first sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of second 
lieutenant. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other 
evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following 

FINDINGS OF PACT. 

1. Leonard H. Mahan, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United State's 
and a resident in the county of Vigo, in the State of Indiana. 

2. On April 12, 1864, the said Leonard H. Mahan was fhst sergeant of Company 
C, Thirty-first Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he 
was mustered into the service, to wit, on June 25, 1864, the same was and contin- 
ued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Order No. 182 of the 
War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Con- 
gress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 734). 

The second lieutenant of said Company C, Thirty-first Regiment Indiana Volun- 
teer Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of 
second lieutenant devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed 
and performed all the duties of second lieutenant of said Company C, Thirty-first 
Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry, until June 21, 1864. 

The governor of the State of Indiana also issued to this claimant a commission as sec- 
ond lieutenant, Company C, Thirty-first Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry. 

3. On the said April 12, 1864, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to 
muster this claimant as second lieutenant of said Company C, Thirty-first Regiment 
Indiana Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its minimum 
strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of second lieutenant 
until he was mustered into the service as fii'st lieutenant, June 25, 1864. 

4. If the said Leonard H. Mahan should be deemed second lieutenant of Company C, 
Thirty-first Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay of that grade, 
the difference between his pay and allowances as a first sergeant, which he has received, 
and that of a second lieutenant to which he would have been entitled had he been 
mustered for the period fi-om April 12, 1864, to June 24, 1864, would amount to $119.14, 
as reported by the Auditor for the War Department, including an erroneous deduction 
of income tax of $4.66. . ,-a^ 



ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 107 

5. Income tax, if to be deducted, would amount to §3.96, leaving a balance of one 
hundred and fifteen dollars and eignteen cents ($115.18). 

By the Court. 
Filed March 11, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the coui't. 
Test this 13th day of March, 1907. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims, 

KATE MOREHEAD ET AL, HEIRS OF JOSEPH P. LESLIE. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-106. Kate Morehead et al., heirs of Joseph P. Leslie, 

deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Committee 
on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The 
case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 1st day of April, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker and Jones appeared for the claimant and the Attorney-General, 
by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimants in then* petition make substantially the following allegations: 

1. That they are citizens of the United States and residents of the States of Indiana 
and Illinois, and are the only children and heirs of Joseph P. Leslie, deceased. 

2. That said Joseph P. Leslie, being the major of the Fourth Regiment of 
Indiana Volunteer Cavalry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the 
Governor' of the State of Indiana as lieutenant-colonel thereof on September 
10, 1863, and that from and after said date the said Joseph P. Leslie assumed and 
performed all the duties of his said grade until January 27, 1864, when he was killed 
m service; said regiment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed 
by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, said Joseph P. Leslie was 
refused muster and recognition in the grade of lieutenant-colonel dming said period. 

3. That during said period the said Joseph P. Leslie was allowed and paid only the 
pay and allowances of a major, although he was in the continuous performance of the 
duties of lieutenant-colonel. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other 
evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. Kate Morehead, Clara M. Girard, and Florence E. Cochran, the claimants of this 
case, are citizens of the United States and residents of the States of Indiana and Illinois. 

2. On September 10, 1863, Joseph P. Leslie was major of the Fourth Regiment of 
Indiana Volunteer Cavalry. On that date and until he was killed in the service, to- 
wit, on January 27, 1864, the same was and continued to be below the minimum num- 
ber prescribed by General Order No. 182 of the War Department of June 20, 1863, 
carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863. (12 
Stat. L., p. 734.) 

The lieutenant-colonel of said Fourth Regiment Indiana Volunteer Cavalry, being 
then *id thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of lieutenant-colonel de- 
volved upon said Joseph P. Leslie, who then and thereafter assumed and performed 
all the duties of lieutenant- colonel of said Fourth Regiment Indiana Volunteer 
Cavalry. 

The governor of the State of Indiana also issued to Joseph P. Leslie a com.' 
mission as lieutenant-colonel Fourth Regiment of Indiana Volunteer Cavalry. 

3. On the said September 10, 1864, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused 
to muster the said Joseph P. Leslie as lieutenant-colonel of said Fourth Regiment of 
Indiana Volunteer Cavalry, solely because his command was below its minimum 
strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of lieutenant- 
colonel until he was killed in the service January 27, 1864. 

6. If the said Joseph P. Leslie should be deemed lieutenant-colonel of Fourth Regi- 
ment of Indiana Volunteer Cavalry and entitled to the pay of that grade, the difference 
between his pay and allowances as a major, whigh he has received, and that of a 
lieutenant-colonel, to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered from 
the period from September 10, 1863, to January 27, 1864, would amount to (155.43) 



108 ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 

fifty-five dollars and forty-three cents, as reported by the Auditor for th.e War Depart- 
ment, including a short payment of $14.33 as major. 

By the Court. 
Filed April 1, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 
Test this 2d day of April, 1907. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

ERNEST 0. NORTH. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169—133. Ernest C. North v. The United States.] 
STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Committee 
on War Claims of the House of Representatives, on-the 14th day of May, 1902. The 
case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 3d day of December, 1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by James A. Tanner, esq. , his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States, and resident in the county of Ohio, in 
the State of Indiana. 

2. That he, being the first sergeant of Company C, Eighty-thkd Regiment of Indiana 
Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State 
of Indiana as first lieutenant thereof on September 25, 1864; and that from and after 
said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until November 11, 
1864, when he was mustered in as such; said regiment was continuously below the 
minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and iio other, 
he was refused muster and recognition in the grade of first lieutenant during said 
period. 

3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances of 
a first sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of first 
lieutenant. 

Upon the reports fm-nished by the War and Treasury Departments, and upon other 
evidence, and upon briefs and arguments of counsel, the court makes the following 

FINDINGS of pact. 

1. Ernest C. North, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and 
resident in the county of Ohio, in the State of Indiana. 

2. On September 25, 1864, the said Ernest C. North was first sergeant of Company C, 
Eighty-third Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was 
mustered into the service — to wit, on November 11, 1864 — the same was and continued 
to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Orders, No. 182, of the War 
Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress 
approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. K, p. 734). 

The first lieutenant of said Company C, Eighty-third Regiment Indiana Volunteer 
Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of first 
lieutenant devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and per- 
formed all the duties of first lieutenant of said Company C, Eighty-third Regiment 
Indiana Volunteer Infantry, until mustered into service as such, November 11, 1864. 

The governor of the State of Indiana also issued to this claimant a commission as 
first lieutenant Company C, Eighty-third Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry. 

3. On the said September 25, 1864, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused 
to muster this claimant as first lieutenant of said Company C, Eighty- third Regiment 
Indiana Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its minimum 
strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of first lieutenant 
until he was mustered into the service as such Novemlier 11, 1864. 

4. During the period aforesaid — to wit, from September 25, 1864, to November 11, 
1864 — this claimant employed no servant not enlisted. 

5. During said period this claimant did not draw rations from the Government. 

6. If the said Ernest C. North should be deemed fii-st lieutenant of Company C, 
Eighty-Third Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay of that 
grade, the difference Ijetween his pay and allowances as a first sergeant, which he has 
received, and that of a first lieutenant, to which he would have been entitled had he 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 109 

been mustered for the period from September 25, 1864, to November 10, 1864, would 
amount to 190.90, without any deduction being made for income tax as reported by tKe 
Auditor for the War Department. 

7. Income tax would amount to $2.82, and if same is deducted the balance is eighty- 
eight dollars and eight' cents ($88.08). 

By the Court. 

Filed December 3, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 6th day of December, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims, 

ROBERT W. PEMBERTON. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10764. Robert W. Pemberton v. The United States.] 
STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Committee 
on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The 
case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 6th day of November, 1905. 

Messrs. Pennebaker and Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant m his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Tippeca- 
noe, in the State of Indiana. 

2. That he, being the second sergeant of Company B, Sixth Regiment of Kentucky 
Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State 
of Kentucky as second lieutenant thereof on December 31, 1863; and that from and 
after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until Novem- 
ber 2, 1864, when he was mustered out as second sergeant. Said regiment was con- 
tinuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this 
reason and no other he was refused muster and recognition in the grade of second 
lieutenant during said period. 

3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances 
of a second sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of 
second lieutenant. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments, and upon other 
evidence, and upon briefs and arguments of counsel, the court makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. Robert W. Pemberton, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United Stateg 
and resident in the county of Tippecanoe, in the State of Indiana. 

2. On December 31, 1863, the said Robert W. Pemberton was second sergeant 
of Company B, Sixth Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry. On that date and 
until he was mustered out of the service, to wit, on November 2, 1864, the same waa 
and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Orders, No. 
182, of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the 
act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 734). 

The second lieutenant of said Company B, Sixth Regiment Kentucky Volunteer 
Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of second 
lieutenant devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and per- 
formed all the duties of second lieutenant of said Company B, Sixth Regiment Ken- 
tucky Volunteer Infantry, until November 2, 1864, when he was mustered out of the 
service as second sergeant. 

The governor of the State of Kentucky also issued to this claimant a commission 
as second lieutenant Company B, Sixth Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry. 

3. On the said December 31, 1863, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused 
to muster this claimant as second lieutenant of said Company B, Sixth Regiment 
Kentucky Volunteer Infantry, solely because his conunand was below its minimum 
strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of second lieu- 
tenant until he was mustered out the service as second sergeant. 

4. During the period aforesaid, to wit, from December 31, 1863, to November 2j 
1864, this claimant employed no servant not enlisted. 

5. During said period this claimant did draw rations from the Government. 



110 ALLOWAl^rCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 

6. If the said Robert W. Pemberton should be deemed second lieutenant of Com- 
pany B, Sixth Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay of 
that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a second sergeant, which 
he has received, and that of a second lieutenant, to which he would have been entitled 
had he been mustered for the period from December 31, 1863,' to November 2, 1864, 
would amount to 1473.02, without making any deduction for income tax, as reported 
by the Auditor for the War Department. 

7. Income tax would amount to |12.17, and if to be deducted would leave $460.85. 

By the Court. 
Filed November 11, 1905. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 
Test this 6th day of December, 1905. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

JOHN W. SALE. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-175. John W. Sale v. The United States.] 
STATEMENT OP CASE.. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Committee 
on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 27th day of March, 1906. The 
case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 11th day of March, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by George M. Anderson, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Allen, in 
the State of Indiana. 

2. That he, being the first sergeant of Company C, Sixty-seventh Regiment of 
Indiana Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor 
of the State of Indiana as second lieutenant thereof on March 1, 1864; and that from 
and after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until 
December 24, 1864, when he was mustered in as such; said regiment was continuously 
below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, 
and no other, he was refused muster and recognition in the grade of second lieutenant 
during said period. 

3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances 
of a first sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of 
second lieutenant. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other 
evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following 

'findings op PACT. 

1. John W. Sale, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and 
resident in the county of Allen, in the State of Indiana. 

2. On March 1, 1864, the said John W. Sale was first sergeant of Company C, Sixty- 
seventh Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was 
mustered into the service, to wit, on December 24, 1864, the same was and continued 
to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Order No. 182 of the War 
Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress 
approved March 3, 1863. (12 Stat. L., p. 734.) 

The second lieutenant of said Company C, Sixty-seventh Regiment Indiana Vol- 
unteer Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service iu said gi-ade, the duties of 
second lieutenant devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed 
and performed all the duties of second lieutenant of said Company C, Sixty-seventh 
Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry. 

The governor of the State of Indiana also issued to this claimant a commission as 
second lieutenant. Company C, Sixty-seventh Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry. 

3. On the said March 1, 1864, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to 
muster this claimant as second lieutenant of said Company C, Sixty-seventh Regi- 
ment Indiana Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its mini- 
mum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of second 
lieutenant until he was mustered into the service as such December 24, 1864. 

4. If the said John W. Sale should be deemed second lieutenant of Company 0, 
Sixty-seventh Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay of that 



ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. Ill 

grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a first sergeant, which he has 
received, and that of a second lieutenant, without servant, to which he would have 
been entitled had he been mustered for the period from March 1, 1864, to December 
23, 1864, would be stated as follows, as reported by the Auditor for the War Depart- 
ment: 

Second lieutenant's pay, 9 months and 22 days $438. 00 

Second lieutenant's subsistence, 297 days. 356. 40 

Total - 794. 40 

Debits: 

Pay received as first sergeant, above period |225. 60 

Clothing received as first sergeant, above period 34. 07 

Subsistence as first sergeant, 297 days 85. 11 

Original and additional bounty forfeited 150. 00 

494.78 



Balance due claimant 299. 62 

(Two hundred and ninety-nine dollars and sixty-two cents.) 

By the Court. 
Filed March 11, 1907. 
A true copy. 

Test this 13th day of March, 1907. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

JOSEPH D. WYATT. 

fin the Court of Claims Congressional, No. 10839. Joseph D. Wyatt v. The United States.] 
STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-enl^tled case was transmitted to the court by the Committee 
on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The 
case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 3d day of December, 1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant and the Attorney-General, 
by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the National Military 
Home in the State of Indiana. 

2. That he, being the fii-st sergeant of Company K, Twenty-fourth Regiment of 
Kentucky Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor 
of the State of Kentucky as second lieutenant thereof on December 1, 1864; and that 
from and after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade 
until January 31, 1865, when he was mustered out as first sergeant; said regiment was 
continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for 
this reason, and no other, he was refused muster and recognition in the grade of second 
lieutenant during said period. 

3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances 
of a first sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of 
second lieutenant. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other 
evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following 

B^HEIi'' ■ ' FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. Joseph D. Wyatt, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and 
resident in the National Military Home in the StSite of Indiana. 

2. On December 1, 1864, the said claimant was first sergeant of Company K, Twenty- 
fourth Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was 
mustered out the service, to wit, on January 31, 1865, the same was and continued to 
be below the minimum number prescribed by General Orders, No. 182, of the War 
Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress 
approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 734). 

The second lieutenant of said Company K, Twenty-fourth Regiment Kentucky 
Volunteer Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties 
of second lieutenant devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed 



112 ALL-OWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 

and performed all the duties of second lieutenant of said Company K, Twenty-fourth 
Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry, until January 31, 1865, when he was mus- 
tered out as first sergeant. 

The governor of the State of Kentucky also issued to this claimant a commission 
as second lieutenant, Company K, Twenty-fourth Regiment Kentucky Volunteer 
Infantry. 

3. On the said December 1, 1864, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused 
to muster this claimant as second lieutenant of said Company K, Ttventy-fourth Regi- 
ment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its mini- 
m.um strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of second 
lieutenant until he was mustered out the service as first sergeant, as aforesaid. 

4. During the period aforesaid, to wit, from December 1, 1864, to January 31, 1865, 
this claimant employed no servant not enlisted. 

5. During said period this claimant did draw rations from the Government. 

t 6. If the said Joseph D. Wyatt should be deemed second lieutenant of Company K, 
Twenty-fourth Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Irdantry, and entitled to the pay of 
that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a first sergeant, which he 
has received, and that of a second lieutenant, to which he would have been entitled 
had he been mustered for the period from December 1, 1864, to January 31, 1865, 
would amount to $102.81, without any deduction for income tax, as reported hj the 
Auditor for the War Department. 

7. Income tax, if to be deducted, would amount to $4.15, and if deducted would 
leave ninety-eight dollars and sixty-six cents ($98.66). 

By the Court. 

Filed December 3, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 6th day of December, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims, 
IOWA. 

HIRAM ATKINSON. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-1. Hiram Atkinson v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Committee 
on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The 
case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 11th day of March, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Fremont, 
in the State of Iowa. 

2. That he, being the first sergeant of Company E, Twenty-ninth Regiment of Iowa 
Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State 
of Iowa as second lieutenant thereof on May 16, 1864; and that from and after said 
date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until July 2, 1864, when 
he was mustered in as such; said regiment was continuously below the minimum num- 
ber prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, he was refused 
muster and recognition in the grade of second lieutenant during said period. 

3. That dm'ing said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances of a 
first sergeant although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of second 
lieutenant. 

Upon the reports fmiiished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other 
evidence, and upon briefs and arguments of counsel, the court makes the following 

FINDINGS of fact. 

1. Hiram Atkinson, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and 
resident in the county of Fremont, in the State of Iowa. 

2. On May 16, 1864, the said Hiram Atkinson was first sergeant of Company E, 
Twenty-ninth Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was 
mustered into the service, to wit, on July 2, 1864, the same was and continued to be 
below the minimum number prescribed by General Orders, No. 182, of the War Depart- 
ment of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved 
March 3, 1863. (12 Stat. L., 734.) 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 113 

The second lieutenant of said Company E, Twenty-ninth Regiment Iowa Volunteer 
Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of second 
lieutenant devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and per- 
formed all the duties of second lieutenant of said Company E, Twenty-ninth Regiment 
Iowa Volunteer Infantry. 

The governor of the State of Iowa also issued to this claimant a commission as second 
lieutenant Company E, Twenty-ninth Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry. 

3. On the said May 16, 1864, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to 
muster this claimant as second lieutenant of said Company E, Twenty-ninth Regiment 
Iowa Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its minimum strength 
as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of second lieutenant until he 
was mustered into the service as such July 2, 1864. 

4. If the said Hiram Atkinson should be deemed second lieutenant of Company E, 
Twenty-ninth Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay of that grade, 
the difference between his pay and allowances as a first sergeant, which he has received, 
and that of a second lieutenant, to which he would have been entitled, had he been 
mustered for the period from May 16, 1864, to July 2, 1864, would amount to $64.59 
(sixty-four dollars and fifty-nine cents), as reported l:)y the Auditor for the War Depart- 
m.ent. Item for servant's pay is not considered. If satisfactory proof as to that item 
is presented, then $34.80 additional is due. 

By the Court. 
Filed March 11,1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 
Test this 13th day of March, 1907. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

ANNIS M. DANA, WIDOAV OF NEWELL B. DANA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional. No. 12169-41. Annis M. Dana, widow of Newell B. Dana, deceased, 

V. The United states ] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Committee 
on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The 
case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 1st day of April, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker and Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

1. That she is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of Washington, 
in the State of Iowa, and is the widow of Newell B. Dana, deceased. 

2. That said Newell B. Dana, being the first sergeant of Company F, Fourth Regi- 
ment of Iowa Volunteer Cavalry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor 
of the State of Iowa as captain thereof on February 2, 1864; and that from and after 
February 4, 1864, the said Newell B. Dana assumed and performed all the duties of 
his said grade until April 29, 1864, when he was mustered in as such; said regiment 
was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and 
for this reason and no other said Newell B. Dana was refused muster and recognition 
in the grade of captain during said period. 

3. That during said period the said Newell B. Dana was allowed and paid only the 
pay and allowances of a first sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance 
of the duties of captain. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other 
evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. Annis M. Dana, the claimant of this case, is a citizen of the United States and 
resident of the county of Washington, in the State of Iowa. 

2. On February 4, 1864, Newell B. Dana was first sergeant of Company F, Fourth 
Regiment of Iowa Volunteer Cavalry. On that date and until he was mustered into the 
service, to wit, on April 29, 1864, the same was and continued to be below the mini- 
mum number prescribed by General Orders, No. 182, of the War Department, of June 
20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3,1863. 
(12 Stat. L., p. 734.) 

H. Rep. 543, 60-1 8 * 



114 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

The captain of said Company F, Fourth Regiment Iowa Vohmteer Cavahy, being 
then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of captain devolved upon 
said Newell B. Dana, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all the duties 
of captain of said Company F, Fourth Regiment Iowa Volunteer Cavalry, until April 
29, 1864. 

The governor of the State of Iowa also issued to said Newell B. Dana a commission 
as captain, Company F, Fourth Regiment of Iowa Volunteer Cavalry. 

3. On the said February 4, 1864, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to 
muster the said Newell B. Dana as captain of said Company F, Fourth Regiment of 
Iowa Volunteer Cavalry, solely because his command was below its minimum strength, 
as aforesaid , although he continued to perform the duties of captain until he was mus- 
tered into the service as such, April 29, 1864. 

4. If the said Newell B. Dana should be deemed captain of Company F, Fourth Regi- 
ment of Iowa Volunteer Cavalry, and entitled to the pay of that grade, the difference 
between his pay and allowances as a first sergeant, which he has received, and that of 
a captain, to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered from the period 
from February 4, 1864, to April 29, 1864, would amount to §242.00 (two hundred and 
forty-two dollars), as reported by the Auditor for the War Department. 

By the Court. 
Filed April 1, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 
Test this 2d day of April, 1907. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

HENRY GREEN. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-57. Henry Green v. The Ignited States.] 
STATEMENT OF CASE. 

Tlae claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Committee 
on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The 
case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 11th day of March, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant and the Attorney-General, 
by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Clay, in the 
State of Iowa. 

2. That he being the first sergeant of Company F, Forty-ninth Regiment of Wiscon- 
sin Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the 
State of Wisconsin as second lieutenant thereof on October 11, 1865, and that from 
ajid after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until 
November 14, 1865, when he was mustered out as first sergeant; said regiment was 
continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for 
this reason, and no other, he was refused muster and recognition in the grade of second 
lieutenant during said period. 

3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances of 
a first sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of second 
lieutenant. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other 
evidence and upon liriefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following 

FINDINGS OP FACT. 

1. Henry Green, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and resi- 
dent in the county of Clay, in the State of Iowa. 

2. On October 11, 1865, the said Henry Green was first sergeant of Company F, 
Forty-ninth Regiment Wisconsin Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he 
was mustered out of the service, to wit, on November 14, 1865, the same was and con- 
tinued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Order No. 182, of the 
War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress 
approved March 3, 1863. (12 Stat. L., 734.) 

The second lieutenant of said Company F, Forty-ninth Regiment Wisconsin Volun- 
teer Infantry, ))eing then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of 
second lieutenant devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed 
and performed all the duties of second' lieutenant of said Company F, Forty-ninth 
Regiment Wisconsin Volunteer Infantry. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 115 

The governor of the State of Wisconsin also issued to this claimant a commission as 
second lieutenant Company F, Forty-ninth Regiment Wisconsin Volunteer Infantry. 

3. On the said October 11, 1865, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused 
to muster this claimant as second lieutenant of said Company F, Forty-ninth Regiment 
Wisconsin Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its minimum 
strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of second lieutenant 
until he was mustered out of the service as first sergeant November 14, 1865. 

4. If the said Henry Green should be deemed second lieutenant of Company F, 
Forty-ninth Regiment Wisconsin Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay of that 
grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a first sergeant, which he has 
received, and that of a second lieutenant, to which he would have been entitled had 
he been mustered for the period from October 11, 1865, to November 14, 1865, would 
amount to $83.81 (eighty-three dollars and eighty-one cents), as reported by the Audi- 
tor for the War Department. Servant's pay not considered. 

By the Court. 
Filed March 11, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 
Test this 13th day of March, 1907. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

JOHANNAH H. HOUPS, WIDOW OF MICHAEL HOUPS. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-77. Johannah II. Houps, widow of Michael Houps, 

deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the aljove-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Committee 
on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The case 
was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 11th day of March, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

1. That she is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of Dubuque, 
in the State of Iowa, and is the widow of Michael Houps, deceased. 

2. That said Michael Houps being the first sergeant of Company E, Twenty-first 
Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the 
governor of the State of Iowa as second lieutenant thereof on February 7, 1865; and 
that from and after said date the said Michael Houps assumed and performed all the 
duties of his said grade until July 25, 1865, when he was mustered out as first sergeant; 
said regiment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and 
regulation, and for this reason, and no other, said Michael Houps was refused muster 
and recognition in the grade of second lieutenant during said period. 

3. That during said period the said Michael Houps was allowed and paid only the 
pay and allowances of a first sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance 
of the duties of second lieutenant. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other 
evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following 

FINDINGS of FACT. 

1. Johanna H. Houps, widow of Michael Houps. deceased, the claimant of this case, 
is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of Dubuque, in the State 
of Iowa. 

2. On February 7, 1865, Michael Houps was first sergeant of Company E, Twenty- 
first Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was mustered out 
of service, to wit, on July 25, 1865, the same was and continued to be below the mini- 
mum number prescribed by General Order No. 182 of the War Department of June 20, 
1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863. (12 
Stat. L., 734.) 

The second lieutenant of said Company E, Twenty-first Regiment Iowa Volunteer 
Infantry being then and thereafter out of service of said grade, the duties of second 
lieutenant devolved upon said Michael Houps, who then and thereafter assumed and 
performed all the duties of second lieutenant of said Company E, Twenty-first Regi- 
ment Iowa Volunteer Infantry. 



116 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

The governor of the State of Iowa also issued to said Michael Houps a commission 
as second lieutenant, Company E, Twenty-first Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry. 

3. On the said February 7, 1865, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused 
to muster the said Michael Houps as second lieutenant of said Company E, Twenty- 
fii'st Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its 
minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of 
second lieutenant until he was mustered out of the service as fiurst sergeant, July 25, 
1865. 

4. If the said Michael Houps should be deemed second lieutenant of Company E, 
Twenty-first Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay of that grade, 
the difference between his pay and allowances as a first sergeant, which he has received, 
and that of a second lieutenant to which he would have been entitled had he been 
mustered irom the period from February 8, 1865, to July 25, 1865, would amount to 
$442.74 (four himdred and forty-two dollars and seventy-four cents), as reported by 
the Auditor for the War Department. Servant's pay not considered. 

By the Court. 
Filed March 11. 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 
Test this 13th day of March, 1907. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

NANCY J. GILLELAND, WIDOW OF JOHN PAUL JONES. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10686. Nancy J. Gilleland, widow (remarried) of John Paul 
Jones, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Committee 
on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The 
case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 11th day of March, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

1. That she is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of Madison, 
in the State of Iowa, and the widow (remarried) of John Paul Jones, deceased. 

2. That said decedent, being first sergeant. Company A, Thirty-ninth Regiment 
Iowa Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the 
State of Iowa as second lieutenant thereof on May 6, 1864; and that from and after 
said date the said decedent assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade 
until October 5, 1864, when he was killed in action; said regiment was continuously 
below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, 
and no other, said decedent was refused muster and recognition in the grade of second 
lieutenant during said period. 

3. That during said period the said decedent was allowed and paid only the pay 
and allowance of a first sergeant, although he was in the continuous, performance of 
the duties of second lieutenant. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other 
evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following 

PINDINGS OP FACT. 

1. Nancy J. Gilleland, widow (remarried) of John Paul Jones, deceased, the claim- 
ant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of Madison, 
in the State of Iowa. 

2. On May 6. 1864, John Paul Jones was first sergeant Company A, Thirty-ninth 
Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until lie was killed in action, 
to wit, on October 5, 1864, the same was and continued to be below the minimum 
number prescribed by General Order No. 182 of the War Department of June 20, 1863, 
carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. 
L., 731 K 

The second lieutenant of said Company A, Thirty-ninth Regiment Iowa Volunteer 
Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of second 
lieutenant devolved upon said decedent, who then and thereafter assumed and per- 
formed all the duties of second lieutenant of said Company A, Thirty-ninth Regiment 
Iowa Volunteer Infantry, until killed in action, as aforesaid. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 117 

The governor of the State of Iowa also issued to said decedent a commission as 
second lieutenant Company A, Thirty-ninth Regiment of Iowa Volunteer Infantry.. 

3. On the said May 6, 1864, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to 
muster the said decedent as second lieutenant of said Company A, Thirty-ninth Regi- 
ment Iowa Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its minimum 
strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of second lieutenant 
until he was killed in action, as aforesaid. 

4. During the period aforesaid, to wit, from May 6, 1864, to October 5, 1864, the said 
decedent employed no servant not enlisted. 

5. During said period the said decedent did draw rations from the Government. 

6. If the said decedent should be deemed second lieutenant of Company A, Thirty- 
ninth Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay of that grade, the 
difference between his pay and allowances as a first sergeant, which he has received, 
and that of a second lieutenant, to which he would have been entitled had he been 
mustered from the period from May 6, 1864, to October 5, 1864, would amount to 
1173.13 (without any deduction for income tax), as reported by the Auditor for the 
War Department. 

7. Income tax, if to be deducted, would amount to $8.84, leaving a balance of one 
hundred and sixty-four dollars and twenty-nine cents ($164.29). 

By the Court. 
Filed March 11, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 
Test this 13th day of March, 1907. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

BASIL D. MOWERY. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-111. Basil D. Mowery v. The United States.] 
STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- 
mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. 
The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 21st day of January, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant and the Attornej^-General, 
by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant m his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Keokuk, 
in the State of Iowa. 

2. That he, being the first sergeant of Company D, Nineteenth Regiment of Iowa 
Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the 
State of Iowa as first lieutenant thereof on August 24, 1863, and that from and after 
said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until February 6, 
1864, when he was mustered in as such, said regiment was continuously below the 
minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, 
he was refused muster and recognition in the grade of ffi'st lieutenant during said period. 

3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances 
of a ffi'st sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of first 
lieutenant. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other 
evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following : 

FINDINGS of fact. 

1. Basil D. Mowery, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and 
resident in the county of Keokuk, in the State of Iowa. 

2. On August 24, 1863, the said claimant was first sergeant of Company D, Nine- 
teenth Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was mustered 
into the service as first lieutenant, to wit, on February 6, 1864, the same was and con- 
tinued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Orders, No. 182, of 
the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of 
Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., 734). 

The first lieutenant of said Company D, Nineteenth Regiment Iowa Volunteer 
Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of first 
lieutenant devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and per- 
formed all the duties of first lieutenant of said Company D, Nineteenth Regiment Iowa 



118 ALLOWAIirCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 

Volunteer Infantry, until February 6, 1864, when he was mustered into the service 
as such. 

The governor of the State of Iowa also issued to this claimant a commission as first 
lieutenant, Company D, Nineteenth Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry. 

3. On the said August 24, 1863, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to 
muster this claimant as first lieutenant of said Company D, Nineteenth Regiment 
Iowa Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its minimum strength, 
as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of first lieutenant until and 
after he was mustered into the service as such. 

4. During the period aforesaid, to wit, from August 24, 1863, to February 6, 1864, 
this claimant employed a servant, not an enlisted man, but it is not shown that he 
employed such servant exclusively, nor does it appear what amoimt, if any, he paid 
this servant. 

5. During said period this claimant did draw rations from the Government. 

6. If the said Basil D. Mowery shoxild be deemed first lieutenant of Company D, 
Nineteenth Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay of that grade, 
the difference between his pay and allowances as a first sergeant, which he has received, 
and that of a first lieutenant, to which he would have been entitled had he been 
mustered for the period from August 24, 1863, to February 6, 1864, would amount to 
$461.22, without any deduction for income tax, as reported by the Auditor for the War 
Department, including $13.37 income tax erroneously deducted in prior settlements on 
remuster. 

7. Income tax, if to be deducted, would amount to $9.65, leaving a balance of four 
hundred and fifty-one dollars and fifty-seven cents ($451.57). 

By the Court. 
Filed January 21, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 
Test this 23d day of January, 1907. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

D. W. POOR. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10769. D. W. Poor, son and heir at law of James A. Poor, 

deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF THE CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- 
mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. 
The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 12th day of November, 1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant and the Attorney-General 
by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

L. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of Buchanan, 
in the State of Iowa, and the son of James A. Poor, deceased. 

2. That said decedent, being the first sergeant of Company C, Twenty-seventh Regi- 
ment of Iowa Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the gov- 
ernor of the State of Iowa as first lieutenant thereof on March 12, 1864, and that from 
and after said date the said decedent assumed and performed all the duties of his said 
grade until June 15, 1864, when he was mustered in as first lieutenant; said regirnent 
was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, 
and for this reason, and no other, said decedent was refused muster and recognition 
in the grade of first lieutenant during said period. 

3. That during said period the said decedent was allowed and paid only the pay 
and allowances of a first sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance 
of the duties of first lieutenant. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other 
evidence and upon l)riefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following 

FINDINGS OP PACT. 

1. D. W. Poor, son and heir at law of James A. Poor, dec-teased, the claimant in 
this case, is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of Buchanan, 
in the State of Iowa. 

2. On March 12, 1864, James A. Poor was first sergeant of Company C, Twenty- 
seventh Regiment of Iowa Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was mus- 
tered into the service, to wit, on June 15, 1864, the same was and continued to be 



ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 119 

below the minimum number prescribed by General Order No. 182 of the War Depart- 
ment of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved 
March 3, 1863. (12 Stat. L., p. 734.) 

The first lieutenant of said Company C, Twenty-seventh. Regiment Iowa Volunteer 
Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of first 
lieutenant devolved upon said decedent, who then and thereafter assumed and per- 
formed all the duties of first lieutenant of said Company C, Twenty-seventh Regi- 
ment Iowa Volunteer Infantry, until June 15, 1864, when he was mustered in as such. 

The governor of the State of Iowa also issued to said decedent a commission as fii-st 
lieutenant Company C, Twenty-seventh Regiment of Iowa Volunteer Infantry. 

On the said March 12, 1864, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to 
muster the said decedent as first lieutenant of said Company C, Twenty-seventh 
Regiment of Iowa Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its 
minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of first 
lieutenant until he was mustered in the service as such as aforesaid. 

4. During the period aforesaid, to wit, from March 12, 1864, to June 15, 1864, the 
said decedent employed no servant not enlisted. 

5. During said period the said decedent did draw rations from the Government. 

6. If the said decedent should be deemed first lieutenant of Company C, Twenty- 
seventh Regiment of Iowa Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay of that grade, 
the difference between his pay and allowances as a first sergeant, which he has.received, 
and that of a first lieutenant, to which he would have been entitled had he been mus- 
tered from the period from March 12, 1864, to June 15, 1864, would amount to 1138.83, 
without any deduction for income tax, as reported by the Auditor for the War Depart- 
ment. 

7. Income tax would amount to .$3.42, and if deducted would leave one hundred and 
thirty-five dollars and forty-one cents ($135.41). 

By the Court. 
Filed November 12, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 
Test this 13th day of November, 1906. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

AUGUST SCHLAPP. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10782. August Schlapp v. The United States.] 
STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between the pay and allow- 
ances of a second lieutenant and a first sergeant in Company F, Fifth Iowa Cavalry 
Volunteers, in the late civil war, was transmitted to the court May 14, 1902, by the 
Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives. 

. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 15th day of May, 1905, Penne- 
baker & Jones, esqs., appearing for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Jas. 
A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appearing for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 
' The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

That he was commissioned a second lieutenant in the Fifth Regiment Iowa Volun- 
teer Cavalry, and entered on the duties of that grade about November 20, 1864, but 
was denied the pay and allowances thereof because of a prohibition in General Orders 
of the War Department, No. 182, of date of June 20, 1863, based on section 20 of the 
act of Congress approved March 3, 1863; that he applied for compensation to the 
Secretary of War, and his claim was rejected by the accounting officers of the Treas- 
ury under the third proviso of the act approved February 24, 1897, because his com- 
mission bore date subsequent to June 20, 1863, when the command was reduced 
below minimum strength by the casualties of war. 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OP FACT. 

I. The claimant was first sergeant, Company F, Fifth Iowa Cavalry Volunteers, 
and was by competent authority duly appointed second lieutenant thereof February 
11, 1865, to rank from November 20, 1864, and he entered uopn the duties of said 
grade on February 22, 1865, and was honorably discharged from the service to date 
August 16, 1865. 



120 ALLOWAXCE OF CEETAIX CLAIMS. 

II. During the wliole of this period claimant's command was on active duty against 
the enemy in the field, and had by the casualties of war been reduced in number 
below its minimum strength, as required by law and regulations, and he was there- 
fore, and for no other reason, refused muster and was not allowed and paid the pay 
and allowances of a second lieutenant of cavalry, although he actually performed 
the duties of that gi-ade diuing said period. 

III. If the Congress desire to allow the claimant the pay and allowances of second 
lieutenant during the period he served as such under his commission, from February 
22, 1865, until he was honorably discharged, August 16, 1865, without having been 
mustered into the service as such, then the amount due him would be $838,64 less 
the sum of $439,28 for pay and allowances received by him as first sergeant dming 
the same period, including pay, clothing, travel pay. and subsistence, rations, and 
overpajTuents of bounty, leaving a difference in his favor of 3399,36, 

JH^If theCongi'ess also desire to deduct from said last sum the income tax of $27.35, 
which woiild have been deducted had the claimant been mustered into the service 
and settled with as second lieutenant dm'inghis service as aforesaid, then the balance 
remaining would be $372,01. 

By the Court. 

Filed May 18, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 8th day of December, 1905. 

[seal.] ' John Randolph, 

Assistant ClerJ: Court of Claims. 

ABRAM TREAD WELL, 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10811. Abram Treadwell v. The United States,] 
STATEMENT OF CASE, 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- 
mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of jSIay, 1902. 
The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 7th day of January, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by James A, Tanner, esq, , his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and the protection of the interests of the United States, 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of Clayton, 
in the State of Iowa, 

2. That he, being the sergeant of Company B, Twenty-fii'st Regiment of Iowa 
Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State 
of Iowa as first lieutenant thereof on November 13, 1863, and that from and after 
said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until July 6, 1864, 
when he was mustered in as such. Said regiment was continuously below the mini- 
mum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, he- 
was refused muster and recognition in the grade of first lieutenant during said period. 

3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pa;>- and allowance of 
a sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of fii'st lieu-. 
tenant. 

Upon the reports furnished Ijy the War and Treasury Departments, and ui)on other 
evidence, and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the com-t makes the following 

FINDINGS OP FACT. 

1. Abram Treadwell, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States 
and resident in the county of Clayton, in the State of Iowa. 

2, On November 13, 1863, the said Abram Treadwell was sergeant of Company B, 
Twenty-first Regiment Iowa "S^olunteer Infantry, On that date and until he was 
mustered into the serAT.ce, to Avit, on July 6, 1864, the same was, and continued to be, 
below the minimum number prescribed by General Orders No, 182 of the War Depart- 
ment of June 20, 1863, carrA-ing into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved 
March 3, 1863 (12 Stat, L,, 734), 

The first lieutenant of said Company B, Twenty-fu-st Regiment Iowa Volunteer 
Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said gr-ade, the duties of first 
lieutenant devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and per- 
formed all the duties of first lieutenant of said Company B, Twenty-first Regiment 
Iowa Volunteer Infantry, until he was mustered into the serA-ice as such July 6. 1864. 

The gOA'ernor of the State of Iowa also issued to this claimant a commission as fii'st 
lieutenant Company B, Twenty-first Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIISI' CLAIMS. 121 

3. On tlie said November 23, 1864, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused 
to muster this claimant as fu'st lieutenant of said Company B, Twenty-first Regiment 
Iowa Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its minimum strength 
as aforesaid, although he contmued to perform the duties of fu-st lieutenant until he 
was mustered into the service as such July 6, 1864. 

4. If the said Abram Treadwell should be deemed first lieutenant of Company B, 
Twenty-fu'st Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay of that grade, 
the difference between his pay and allowances as a sergeant, which he has received, 
and that of a first lieutenant, to which he would have been entitled had he been 
mustered for the period from November 13, 1863, to July 5, 1864, would amount to 
$450.40 without any deduction for income tax, as reported by the Auditor for the War 
Department. 

5. Income tax, if to be deducted, would amount to $8.62, leaving a balance of four 
hundred and forty-one dollars and seventy-eight cents (§441.78). 

By the Court. 
Filed January 7, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 
Test this 9th day of January, 1907. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

KANSAS. 
JAMES P. BARNETT. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-8. James r. Barnett v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Committee 
on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The 
case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 21st day of January, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Sedgwick, 
in the State of Kansas. 

2. That he, being the first sergeant of Company G, One hundred and sixteenth 
Regiment of Illinois Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by 
the governor of the State of Illinois as fust lieutenant thereof on December 22, 1863, 
and that from and after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his 
said gTade until February 8, 1864, when he was mustered in as such: said regiment 
was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, 
and for this reason, and no othei, he was refused muster and recognition in the grade 
of first lieutenant dming said period. 

3. That during said period he was allowed and''paid only the pay and allowances 
of a first sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of 
first lieutenant. 

Upon the reports fm-nished by the War and Treasury Departments, and upon other 
evidence, and upon briefs and arguments of counsel, the court makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. James P. Barnett, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and 
resident of the county of Sedgwick, in the State of Kansas. 

2. On December 22, 1863, the said James P. Barnett was fhst sergeant of Coni- 
pany G, One hundred and sixteenth Regiment Illinois Volunteer Infantry. On that 
date and imtil he was mustered into the service, to wit, on February 8, 1864, the 
same was and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General 
Orders, No. 182, of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 
20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., 733). 

The first lieutenant of said Company G, One hundred and sixteenth Regiment 
Illinois Volunteer Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, 
the duties of first lieutenant devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter 
assumed and performed all the duties of first lieutenant of said Company G, One 
hundred and sixteenth Regiment Illinois Volunteer Infantry, until February 8, 1864. 

The governor of the State of Illinois also issued to this claimant a commission as 
first lieutenant Company G, One hundred and sixteenth Regiment Illinois Volun- 
teer Infantry. _^ ^ 



122 ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 

3. On the said December 22, 1863, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused 
to muster this claimant as fu'st lieutenant of said Company G, One hundred and 
sixteenth Regiment Illinois Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was 
below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the 
duties of first lieutenant until he was mustered into the service as such February 8, 
1864. 

4. Dming the period aforesaid, to wit, from December 22, 1863, to February 7, 
1864, this claimant employed no servant not enlisted. 

5. Dm"ing said period this claimant did not draw rations from the Government. 

6. If the said James P. Barnett should be deemed fii'st lieutenant of Company G, 
One hundred and sixteenth Regiment Illinois Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to 
the pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a fu'st ser- 
geant, which he has received, and that of a fii-st lieutenant, to which he would have 
been entitled had he been mustered for the period fi'om December 22, 1863, to Feb- 
ruary 7, 1864, would amount to $97.71, without any deduction for income tax, as 
reported by the Auditor for the War Department. 

7. Income tax, if to be deducted, would amount to 11.73, leaving a balance of 
ninety-five dollars and ninety-eight cents ($95.98). 

By the Court. 
Filed January 21, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 
Test this 24th day of January, 1907. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

FRANK CRATHORNE. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No, 12169—27. Frank Crathorne v. The United States.] 
STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Committee 
on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The 
case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 21st day of January, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and the protection of the interests of the Untied States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Wilson, 
in the State of Kansas. 

2. That he, being the first sergeant of Company D, Twenty-thnd Regiment of 
Iowa Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of 

'the State of Iowa as first lieutenant thereof, on January 15, 1864; and that from and 
after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until March 
27, 1864, when he was mustered in as such; said regiment was continuously below the 
minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, 
he was refused muster and recognition in the grade of first lieutenant during said period. 

3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances 
of a first sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of 
first lieutenant. 

Upon the reports furnished liy the War and Treasury Departments, and upon other 
evidence, and upon briefs and arguments of counsel, the court makes the following 

FINDINGS of fact. 

1. Frank Crathorne, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and 
resident in the county of Wilson, in the State of Kansas. 

2. On January 15. 1864, the said Frank Crathorne was first sergeant of Company 
D, Twenty-third Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he 
was mustered into the service — to wit, on March 27, 1864 — the same was and con- 
tinued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Orders, No. 182, of 
the War Department, of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of 
Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stats. L., 734). 

The first lieutenant of said Company D, Tw(>nty-third Regiment Iowa Volunteer 
Infanlry, l)eing then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of first 
lieutenant devolved upf)n this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and per- 
formed all the duties of first lieutenant of said Company D, Twenty-third Regiment 
Iowa Volunteer Infantry, until March 27, 1864. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAHsT CLAIMS. 123 

The governor of the State of Iowa also issued to this claimant a commission as fu'st 
lieutenant, Company D, Twenty-third Regiment, Iowa Volunteer Infantry. 

3. On the said ,-186 , the mustering officer then and thereafter refused 
to muster this claimant as first lieutenant of said Company D, Twenty-third Regi- 
ment, Iowa Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its minimum 
strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of first lieutenant 
imtil he was mustered into the service as such March 27, 1864. 

4. During the period afoi'esaid — to wit, from January 16, 1864, to March 26, 1864 — 
this claimant employed one servant, not enlisted. 

5. During said period this claimant did not draw rations from the Government. 

6. If the said Frank Crathorne should be deemed first lieutenant of Company D, 
Twenty-third Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay of that 
grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a first sergeant, which he 
has received, and that of a first lieutenant, to which he would have been entitled 
had he been mustered for the period from January 16, 1864, to March 26, 1864, would 
amount to $201.17 without any deduction for income tax as reported by the Auditor 
for the War Department. 

7. Income tax, if to be deducted, would amount to $4.16, leaving a balance of one 
hundred and ninety-seven dollars and one cent ($197.01). 

Filed January 21, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 24th day of January, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Glerk Court oi Claims, 

MARY A. MATHEWS. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10737. Mary A. Mathews, widow of Fenelon B. Mathews, v. The 

United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- 
mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. 
The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 6th day of November, 1905. 

Messrs. Pennebaker and Jones appeared for the claimant and the Attorney-General, 
by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his dhection, appeared for the 
defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

1. That she is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of Barber, 
in the State of Kansas, and is the widow of Fenelon B. Mathews, deceased. 

2. That said Fenelon B. Mathews, being the first sergeant of Company B, Thirty- 
third Regiment of Iowa Volunteer Infantiy, was duly appointed or commissioned by 
the governor of the State of Iowa as second lieutenant thereof on January 6, 1865; 
and that from and after said date the said Fenelon B. Mathews assumed and performed 
all the duties of his said grade until August 8, 1865, when he was discharged as first 
sergeant. Said regiment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed 
by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, said Fenelon B. Mathews was 
refused muster and recognition in the grade of second lieutenant during said period. 

3. That during said period the said Fenelon B. Mathews was allowed and paid only 
the pay and allowances of a first sergeant, although he was in the continuous perform- 
ance of the duties of second lieutenant. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other 
evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. Mary A. Mathews, widow of Fenelon B. Mathews, the claimant in this case, is a 
citizen of the United States and resident of the county of Barber, in the State of 
Kansas. 

2. On January 6, 1865, Fenelon B. Mathews was first sergeant of Company B, Thirty- 
third Regiment of Iowa Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was discharged 
the service, to wit, on August 8, 1865, the same was and continued to be below the 
minimum number prescribed by General Orders, No. 182, of the War Department, of 
June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 
1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 734). 

The second lieutenant of said Company B, Thirty-third Regiment Iowa Volunteer 
Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of second 



124 ALLOWAlSrCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

lieutenant devolved upon said Fenelon B. Mathews, who then and thereafter assumed 
and performed all the duties of second lieutenant of said Company B, Thirty-third 
Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry, until Aiigust 8, 1865, when he was finally dis- 
charged the service. 

The governor of the State of Iowa also issued to said Fenelon B. Mathews a com- 
mission as second lieutenant. Company B, Thirty- third Regiment of Iowa Volunteer 
Infantry. 

3. On the said January 6, 1865, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused 
to muster the said Fenelon B. Mathews as second lieutenant of said Company B, 
Thirty-third Regiment of Iowa Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was 
below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties 
of second lieutenant until he was finally discharged the service as first sergeant. 

4. During the period aforesaid, to wit, from January 6, 1865, to August 8, 1865, the 
said Fenelon B. Mathews employed no servant not enlisted. 

5. During said period the said Fenelon B. Mathews did draw rations from the 
Government. 

6. If the said Fenelon B. Mathews should be deemed second lieutenant of Company 
B, Thirty- third Regiment of Iowa Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay of that 
grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a first sergeant, which he has 
received, and that of a second lieutenant, to which he would have been entitled had 
he been mustered from the period from January 6, 1865, to August 8, 1865, would 
amount to $550.52, without any deduction for income tax, as reported by the Auditor 
for the War Department. 

7. Income tax would amount to $25.23, and if to be deducted would leave 1525.29. 
Filed November 11, 1905. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 6th day of December, 1905. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clei'h Court of Claims. 

FLORENCE M. METZ, WIDOW OF EDMUND METZ. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-121. Florence M. Metz, widow of Edmund Metz 

deceased, v. The United States. 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to tha coiut by the Com- 
mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 27th day of March, 1906. 
The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 11th day of ]\Iarc]i, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by George M. Anderson, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant, in her petition, makas substantially the following allegations: 

1. That she is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of Reno, in 
the State of Kansas, and she is the widow of Edmund Metz, deceased. 

2. That said Edmund Metz being the sergeant of Company H, Thirty-eighth 
Regiment of Ohio Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the 
governor of the State of Ohio as second lieutenant thereof on February 25, 1864; and 
that from and after said date the said Edmund Metz assumed and performed all the 
duties of his said grade until April 20, 1864, when he was mustered in as such; said regi- 
ment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, 
and for this reason, and no other, said Edmund Metz was refused muster and recognition 
in the grade of second lieutenant during said period. 

3. That during said period the said Edmund Metz was allowed and paid only the 
pay and allowances of a sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance of the 
duties of second lieutenant. 

Upon th3 reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments, and upon other 
evidence, and upon Ijriefs and arguments of counsel, the court makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. Florence M. Metz, widow of Edmund Metz, deceased, the claimant of this case, 
citizen of the United States and resident of the county of Reno, in the State of 
Kansas. 

2. On February 25, 1864, Edmund Metz was sergeant of Company H, Thhty-eighth 
Regiment of Ohio Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was mustered into 
the service, to wit, on April 20, 1864, the same was and continued to be below the 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 125 

raininium number prescribed by General Orders, No. 182, of the AVar Department of 
June 20, 1863, carr^ang into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 
1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 734). 

The second lieutenant of said Company H, Thirty-eighth Regiment Ohio Volunteer 
Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of second 
lieutenant devolved upon said Edmund Metz, who then and thereafter assumed and 
performed all the duties of second lieutenant of said Company H, Thhty-eighth Regi- 
ment Ohio Volunteer Infantry. 

The go^'ernor of the State of Ohio also issued to said Edmund Metz a commission as 
second lieutenant Company H, Thii'ty-eighth Regiment of Ohio Volunteer Infantry. 

3. On the said February 25, 1864, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to 
muster the said Edmund Metz as second lieutenant of said company H, Thii'ty-eighth 
Regiment of Ohio Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its 
minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the difties of second 
lieutenant until he was mustered into the service as such, April 20, 1864. 

4. If the said Edmund Metz should be deemed second lieutenant of Company H, 
Thirty-eighth Regiment of Ohio Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay of that 
grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a sergeant, which he has 
received, and that of a second lieutenant, without servant, to Avhich he would have 
been entitled had he been mustered from the period from February 25, 1864, to April 
19, 1864, would amount to $113.23 (one hundred and thhteen dollars and twenty-three 
cents), as reported by the Auditor for the War Department, including short payments 
aggregating |;20.10. 

By the Court. 
- Filed March 11, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 13th day of March, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

MARTIN V. B. SHEAFOR. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-176. Martin V. B. Sheafor v. Tha United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Committee 
on War Clauns of the House of Representatives on the 27th day of March, 1906. The 
case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 11th day of March, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by George M. Anderson, esq., his assistant and under his dhection, appeared for the 
defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Cloud, in the 
State of Kansas. 

2. That he, being the sergeant of Company M, Fourth Regiment of Iowa Volunteer 
Cavalry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State of Iowa as 
second lieutenant thereof on January 19, 1864, and that from and after said date he 
assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until March 20, 1864, when he 
was mustered in as such ; said regiment was continuously below the minimum number 
prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, he was refused mus- 
ter and recognition in the grade of second lieutenant during said period. 

3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances of a 
sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of second lieu- 
tenant. 

Upon the reports furnished by tlie War and Treasury Departments and upon other 
evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. Martin V. B. Sheafor, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States 
and resident in the county of Cloud, in the State of Kansas. 

2. On January 19, 1864, the said Martin V. B. Sheafor was sergeant of Company M, 
Fourth Regiment Iowa Volunteer Cavalry. On that date and until he was mustered 
into the service, to wit, on March 20, 1864, the same was and continued to be below the 
minimum numloer prescribed by General Orders, No. 182, of the War Department of 
June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 
1863 (12 Stat. L., 734). 



126 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

The second lieutenant of said Company M, Fourth Regiment Iowa Volunteer Cavalry, 
being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of second lieutenant 
devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all the 
duties of second lieutenant of said Company M, Fourth Regiment Iowa Volunteer 
Cavalry. 

The governor of the State of Iowa also issued to this claimant a commission as second 
lieutenant. Company M, Fourth Regiment Iowa Volunteer Cavalry. 

3. On the said January 19, 1864, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to 
muster this claimant as second lieutenant of said Company M, Fourth Regiment Iowa 
Volunteer Cavalry, solely because his command was below its minimum strength, as 
aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of second lieutenant until he was 
mustered into the service as such March 20, 1864. 

4. If the said Martin V. B. Sheafor should be deemed second lieutenant of Company 
M, Fourth Regiment Iowa Volunteer Cavalry, and entitled to the pay of that grade, the 
difference between his pay and allowances as a sergeant, which he has received, and 
that of a second lieutenant without servant, to which he would have been entitled had 
he been mustered for the period from January 19, 1864, to March 19, 1864, would amount 
to $152.76 (one hundred and fifty-two dollars and seventy-six cents), as reported by the 
Auditor for the War Department. 

By the Court. 
Filed March 11, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 
Test this 13th day of March. 1907. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

WILLIAM H. SPARROW. 

[Court of Claims. No. 12169— (158. William H. Sparrow v. The United States.] 
STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Committee 
on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The 
case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 21st day of January. 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant and the Attorney-General 
by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Labette, 
in the State of Kansas. 

2. That he, being the first sergeant of Company I, Twelfth Regiment of Indiana 
Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the 
State of Indiana as second lieutenant thereof on May 1, 1865, and that from and after 
said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until July 27, 
1865, when he was mustered out as first sergeant. Said regiment was continuously 
below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, 
and no other, he was refused muster and recognition in the grade of second lieutenant 
during said period. 

3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances 
of a first sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of 
second lieutenant. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments, and upon other 
evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel, the court makes the following 

FINDINGS OF PACT. 

1. William H. Sparrow, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States, 
and a resident in the county of Labette, in the State of Kansas. 

2. On May 1, 1865, the said William H. Sparrow was second lieutenant of Com- 
pany I, Twelfth Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry. On that date, and until he 
was mustered out of the service, to wit, on July 27, 1865, the same was and continued 
to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Orders, No. 182, of the War 
Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress 
approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 734). 

The second lieutenant of said Company I, Twelfth Regiment Indiana Volunteer 
Infantry, died on July 24, 1864, and the duties of second lieutenant devolved upon 
this claimant, who, on May 1, 1865, assumed and performed all the duties of second 



ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 127 

lieutenant of said Company I, Twelfth Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry, until 
July 27, 1865. 

The governor of the State of Indiana also issued to this claimant a commission as 
second lieutenant, Company I, Twelfth Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry. 

3. On the said May 1, 1865, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to 
muster this claimant as second lieutenant of said Company I, Twelfth Regiment 
Indiana Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its minimum 
strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of second lieu- 
tenant until he was mustered out of the service as hrst sergeant, July 27, 18G5. 

4. During the period aforesaid, to wit, from May 1, 1865, to July 27, 1865, this 
claimant employed no servant not enlisted. 

5. During said period this claimant did draw rations from the Government. 

6. If the said ^Mlliam H. Sparrow should be deemed second lieutenant of Company 
I, Twelfth Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay of that grade, 
the difference between his pay and allowances as a first sergeant, which he has 
received, and that of a second lieutenant, to which he would have been entitled had 
he been mustered for the period from May 1, 1865, to July 27, 1865, would amount to 
1165.26 without any deduction for income tax, as reported by the Auditor for the 
War Department. 

7. Income tax, if to be deducted, would amount to $9.60, leaving a balance of one 
hundred and fifty-five dollars and sixty-six cents (S155.66). 

Filed February 21, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 23d day of January, 1907. 

[seal.] - John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

JACOB SAMUEL WEAVER. 

[Court of Claims. Congressionnl, No. 10S26. Jacob Samuel Weaver r. The United States.] 
STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The.claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court Ijy the Committee 
on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The 
case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 6th day of November, 1905. 

Messrs. Pennebaker and Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Bourbon, 
in the State of Kansas. 

2. That he, being the first sergeant of Company M, Eleventh Regiment Pennsyl- 
vania Volunteer Cavalry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the 
State of Pennsylvania as second lieutenant thereof, to take rank from October 1, 1864; 
and that from and after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said 
grade until November 5, 1864, when he was mustered in as second lieutenant. Said 
regiment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regu- 
lation, and for this reason and no other he was refused muster and recognition in the 
grade of second lieutenant during said period. 

3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances 
of a first sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of 
second lieutenant. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other 
evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. Jacob Samuel Weaver, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States 
and resident in the county of Bourbon, in the State of Kansas. 

2. On October 1, 1864, the said Jacob Samuel Weaver was first lieutenant of Com- 
pany M, Eleventh Regiment Pennsylvania Volunteer Cavalry. On that date and 
until he was mustered into the service, to wit, on November 6, 1864, the same was 

. and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Orders No. 
182 of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act 
of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 734). 

The second lieutenant of said Company M, Eleventh Regiment Pennsylvania Vol- 
unteer Cavalry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of 



128 ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 

second lieutenant devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed 
and performed all the duties of second lieutenant of said Company M, Eleventh 
Regiment Pennsylvania Volunteer Cavalry, until November 6, 1864, when he was 
mustered as such. 

The governor of the State of Pennsylvania also issued to this claimant a commission 
as second lieutenant, Company M, Eleventh Regiment Pennsylvania Volunteer 
Cavalry. 

3. On the said October 1, 1864, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused 
to muster this claimant as second lieutenant of said Company M, Eleventh Regiment 
Pennsylvania Volunteer Cavalry, solely because his command was below its minimum 
strength as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of second lieutenant 
until he was mustered into the service as such. 

4. During a portion of the period aforesaid, to wit, from October 25, 1864, to Novem- 
ber 6, 1864, this claimant employed a servant not enlisted. 

5. During said period this claimant did not draw rations fi'om the Government. 

6. If the said Jacob Samuel Weaver should be deemed second lieutenant of Com- 
pany M, Eleventh Regiment Pennsylvania Volunteer Cavalry, and entitled to the 
pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a first sergeant, 
which he has received, and that of a second lieutenant, to which he would have been 
entitled had he been mustered for the period from October 1, 1864, to November 6, 
1864, would amount to $82.26, without any deduction for income tax, as reported by 
the Auditor for the War Department. 

7. Income tax would amount to 12.80, and if to be deducted would leave $79.46. 

By the Court. 
Filed November 1, 1905. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 
Test this 6th day of December, 1905. 
[seal.] ■ John Randolph, 

Assista7it Clerk Court of Claims. 
KENTUCKY. 

SARAH ANN DOBBS. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10668. Sarah Ann Dobbs, widow of Nathaniel B. Dobbs, 

V. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the com't by the Com- 
mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. 
The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 13th clay of November, 1905. 

Messrs. Pennebaker and Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-Gen- 
eral, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his dhection, appeared for 
the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

1. That she is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of Pulaski, 
in the State of Kentucky, and is the widow of Nathaniel B. Dobbs, deceased. 

2. That said Nathaniel B. Dobbs, being the first sergeant of Company A, Twelfth 
Regiment of Kentucky Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by 
the governor of the State of Kentucky as second lieutenant thereof on March 6, 1864, 
and that from and after said date the said Nathaniel B. Dobbs assumed and per- 
formed all the duties of his said grade until July 10, 1864, when he was mustered in 
as second lieutenant. Said regiment was continuously below the minimum number 
prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, said Nathaniel B. 
Dobbs was refused muster and recognition in the grade of second lieutenant dming 
said period. 

3. That during said period the said Nathaniel B. Dobbs was allowed and paid 
only the pay and allowances of a first sergeant, although he was in the continuous 
performance of the duties of second lieutenant. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other 
evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel, the court makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. Sarah Ann Dobbs, widow of Nathaniel B. Dobbs, deceased, the claimant in 
this case, is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Pulaski, in ' 
the State of Kentucky. 

2. On ;March 6, 1864, Nathaniel B. Dobbs was first sergeant of Company A, Twelfth 
Regiment of Kentucky Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was mus- 
tered into the service, to wit, on July 10, 1864, the same was and continued to be below 



ALLOWAXCE OP CEETAi:J3" CLAIMS. 129 

the ininimum number prescribed by General Orders No. 182 of the War Department 
of Jvme 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 
3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 734). 

The second lieutenant of said Company A, Twelfth Regiment Kentucky Volunteer 
Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of second 
lieutenant devolved upon said Nathaniel B. Dobbs, who then" and thereafter assumed 
and performed all the duties of second lieutenant of said Company A, Twelfth Regi- 
ment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry, until mustered as such, to wit, July 10, 1864. 

The governor of the State of Kentucky also issued to said Nathaniel B. Dobbs a 
commission as second lieutenant Company A, Twelfth Regiment of Kentucky Vol- 
unteer Infantry. 

3. On the said March 6, 1864, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to 
muster the said Nathaniel B. Dobbs as second lieutenant of said Company A, Twelfth 
Regiment of Kentucky Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below 
its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of 
second lieutenant until he was mustered into rhe service as such, as aforesaid. 

4. During the peritid aforesaid, to wit, from March 6, 1864, to July 10, 1864, the 
said Nathaniel B. Dobbs employed no servant not enlisted. 

5. During said period the said Nathaniel B. Dobbs did draw rations from the Gov- 
ernment. 

6. If the said Nathaniel B. Dobbs should be deemed second lieutenant of Com- 
pany A, Twelfth Regiment of Kentucky Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay 
of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a first sergeant, which 
he has received, and that of a second lieutenant, to which he would have been en- 
titled had he been mustered fi'om the period from March 6, 1864, to July 10, 1864, 
would amount to $152.25, without making any deduction for income tax, as reported 
by the Auditor for the War Department. 

7. Income tax would amount to $4.10; if to be deducted, would leave $148.15. 
Filed November 10, 1905. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the comt. 

Test this 6th day of December, 1905. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 
"U. S. DENNY. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 8194. Estate of Thomas D. Denny v. The United States.] 

This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- 
nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for 
the suppression of tlie rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Thomas 
D. Denny, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom 
the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United 
States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed November 2, 1903. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 8194. U. S. Denny, heir of estate of Thomas D. Denny, v. 

The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken 
by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late 
war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted to the court by the Committee 
on War Claims, House of Representatives, on the 2d day of March, 1891. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 2d day of November, 1903, feund that the 
person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged 
to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said 
war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 22d day of December, 1904, 
George A. & William B. King, esqs., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by Felix Brannigan, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations : 

That he is the heir of Thomas D. Denny, deceased; that said claimant's decedent was 
during the civil war a resident of the State of Kentucky and did not give any aid or 

H. Rep. 543, 60-1 9 



ISO ALLOWANCE OF CERTAUsT CLAIMS. 

comfort to the said rebellion, but was throughout that war loyal to the Government of 
tiae United States. 

That the following property belonging to claimant's decedent was taken from him by 
the United States Army and used by the said Army, the date, place, and command 
being particularly stated below, in Wayne County, State of Kentucky, to wit : 

By First Tennessee Cavalry Volunteers, Lieut. John H. James, quarter- 
master, December 31, 1861 — 

150 bushels corn, 80 cents per bushel |120. 00 

3^ tons hay, at $16 per ton , 56. 00 

20 bushels oats, at 60 cents per bushel 12. 00 

By Second Tennessee Infantry Volunteers, Lieut. G. AV. Keith, regimental 
quartermaster — 

350 bushels corn, at 80 cents per bushel 280. 00 

55 bushels of o'ats. at 60 cents per bushel 33. 00 

4 tons hay, at $16 per ton _. 64. 00 

By Twelfth Kentucky Infantry Volunteers, Lieut. G. H. Noland, regimental 
quartermaster, about December 31, 1861 — 

40 bushels corn 32. 00 

1 ton hay 16. 00 

15 bushels oats, at 60 cents per bushel 9. 00 

By Thirtieth Kentucky Mounted Infantry, Lieut. G. W. Funnell, regimen- 
tal quartermaster, about October 16, 1864 — 

400 bushels corn, at $1 per bushel 400. 00 

1 ton hay 16. 00 

26 bushels oats, at 60 cents per bushel 15. 60 

Total 1, 053. 60 

The comt, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDING OF FACT. 

Dming the war for the suppression of the rebellion, the military forces of the LTnited 
States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took from the claimant's decedent 
in Wayne County, State of Kentucky, property as above described, which at the time 
and place was reasonably worth the sum of one hundred and two dollars (|102). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

By the Court. 

Filed January 3, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 8th day of February, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

THOMAS P. COLDWELL. 

fCourt of Claims. Congressional, No. 10651. Thomas P. Coldwell v. The United States.] 
STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- 
mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. 
The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 6th day of November, 1905. 

Messrs. Pennebaker(& Jones appeared for the claimant and the Attoiniey-General, 
by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Laurel, 
in the State of Kentucky. 

2. That he, being the captain of Company K, Seventh Regiment of Kentucky 
Tolunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the 
State of Kentucky as major thereof on October 9, 1865; and tliat from and after said 
date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade luitil March 24, 1866, 
when he was mustered out as captain; said regiment was continuously below the 
minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, 
he was refused muster and recognition in the grade of major during said period. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 131 

3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances 
of a captain, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of major. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other 
evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. Thomas P. Coldwell, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States 
and resident in the county of Laurel, in the State of Kentucky. 

2. On October 9, 1865, the said Thomas P. Coldwell was captain of Company K, 
Seventh Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was 
mustered out the service, to wit, on March 24, 1866, the same was and continued to 
be below the minimum number prescribed by General Orders, No. 182, of the War 
Department, of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress 
approved March 3, 1863. (12 Stat. _L., p. 734.) 

The major of said Seventh Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry being then 
and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of major devolved upon this 
claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all the duties of major 
of said Seventh Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry vmtil March 24, 1866, when 
he was finally discharged the service as a captain. 

The governor of the State of Kentucky also issued to this claimant a commission as 
major Seventh Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry. 

3. On the said October 9, 1865, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to 
muster this claimant as major of said Seventh Regiment Kentucky Volunteer In- 
fantry solely because his command was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, 
although he continued to perform the duties ,of major until he was mustered out 
the service as captain. 

4. During the period aforesaid, to wit, from October 9, 1865, to March 24, 1866, 
this claimant employed only one servant, not enlisted. 

5. If the said Thomas P. Coldwell should be deemed major of the Seventh Regi- 
ment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry and entitled to the pay of that grade, the differ- 
ence between his pay and allowances as a captain, which he has received, and that of 
a major, to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered for the period 
from October 9, 1865, to March 24, 1866, would amount to $89.83, without making 
any deduction for difference in income tax as reported by the Auditor for the War 
Department: 

The difference in income tax, amounting to $4.49, if to be deducted, would leave 
$85 34 

Filed November 1, 1905. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 6th day of December, 1905. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

STEPHEN E. BROWN. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 5188. Stephen E. Brown v. The United States.] 

This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- 
nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for 
the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on preliminary inquiry, finds that Stephen 
E. Brown, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom 
the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United 
States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed December 24, 1894. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 5188. Stephen E Brown i'. The United States.] 
statement of case. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken 
by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late 
war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted to the court by the Committee 
on War Claims, House of Representatives, on the 10th day of July, 1888. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 24th day of December, 1894, found that 
the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores or from whom they were 
alleged to have been taken was loyal to the Government of the United States through- 
out said war. 



132 ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 7th day of January, 1907. 

0. A. and F. W. Brandenburg, esqs., ajjpeared for claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by George M. Anderson, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared 
for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

That during the said war he was a resident of Boyle County, State of Kentucky, and 
was the owner and possessor, on his farm in said county and State, of certain quarter- 
master stores and commissary supplies, which in the fall of 1862 were seized and appro- 
priated to the use of the military forces of the United States then stationed and 
operating in said locality, according to the following bill of items: 

1 brown mare $150 

1 bay mare 125 

1 sorrel horse 125 

600 bushels of corn, at 80 cents 480 

480 bushels of oats, at 50 cents 240 

Total 1, 120 

The court, upon the evidence and after the consideration of briefs and after hearing 
the arguments of the respective counsel, makes the following 

FINDING OF PACT. 

There was taken from the claimant in Boyle County, State of Kentucky, by the 
military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, 
property as above described, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably 
worth the sum of four hundred and ninety dollars ($490) 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

By the Court. 

Filed January 14, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 24th day of January, 1907. 

[seal.] John Eandolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

VALENTINE S. BREWER. 
[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10628. Valentine S. Brewer v. The Upited States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Commit- 
tee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The 
case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 13th day of November, 1905. 

Messrs. Pennebaker and Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by Jams A. Tanner, esq . , his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of Owsley, in 
the State of Kentucky. 

2. That he, being the sergeant of Company D, Seventh Regiment of Kentucky 
Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State 
of Kentucky as second lieutenant thereof on December 18, 1863. and that from and 
after said date he assumed and pei'formed all the duties of his said grade until October 
5, 1864, when he was mustered out as sergeant; said regiment was continuously below 
the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no 
other, he was refused muster and recognition in the grade of second lieutenant during 
said period. 

3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances 
of a sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of second 
lieutenant. 

Upon the reports furnished hj the War and Treasury Departments and upon other 
evidence, and upon briefs and arguments of counsel, the court makes the following 



ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS, 183 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. Valentine S. Brewer, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States 
and resident in the county of Owsley, in the State of Kentucky. 

2. On December 18, 1863. the said Valentine S. Brewer was sergeant of Company 
D, Seventh Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was 
mustered out of the service, to wit, on October 5, 1864, the same was and continued 
to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Orders, No. 182, of the War 
Department, of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress 
approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 734). 

The second lieutenant of said Company D, Seventh Regiment Kentucky Volun- 
teer Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of 
second lieutenant devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and 
performed all the duties of second lieutenant of said Company D, Seventh Regiment 
Kentucky Volunteer Infantry, until October 5, 1864. 

The governor of the State of Kentucky also issued to this claimant a commission as 
second lieutenant, Company D, Seventh Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry. 

3. On the said December' 18, 1863, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused 
to muster this claimant as second lieutenant of said Company D. Seventh Regiment 
Kentucky Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its minimum 
strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of second lieutenant 
until he was mustered out the service -as sergeant. 

4. During the period aforesaid, to wit, fi'om December 18, 1863, to October 5, 1864, 
this claimant employed no servant. 

5. During said period this claimant did draw rations from the Government. 

6. If the said Valentine S. Brewer should be deemed second lieutenant of Company 
D, Seventh Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay of that 
grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a sergeant, which he has 
received, and that of a second lieutenant, to which he would have been entitled had 
he been mustered for the period from December 18. 1863, to October 5, 1864, would 
amount to .?469.90, without making any deduction for income tax, as reported by the 
Auditor for the War Department. 

7. Income tax would amount to $12.31, and if to be deducted would leave §457.59. 
Filed November 2, 1905. 

A true copv of the finding of facts as filed by the court. 

Test this 6th day of December, 1905. 

[seal.] ' John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

WILLIAM n. BOSWELL. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 22S0. William H. Boswell r. The United States.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- 
nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for 
the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that William 
H. Boswell, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom 
the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United 
States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed November 13, 1905. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 22S0. William H. Boswell v. The United States.] 
STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken 
by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late 
war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Committee 
on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of February ,_ 1888. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 13th day of November, 1905, found that 
the person alleged to have' furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were 
alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- 
out said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 22d day of October, 1906. 
Charles W. Clagett, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by W. W. 
Scott, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and pro- 
tection of the interests of the United States. 



134 ALLOWAiSrCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

That he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Anderson County, Ky., 
and resided in said covmty during the civil war of 1861; that he has a claim against the 
United States for stores and supplies furnished the Army of the United States as 
follows: 

For forage, stabling, and attention furnished to 43 Government horses for two hun- 
dred and ten days in the year 1865, under direction of Capt. Lorenzo Brown, of Com- 
pany D, Fifty-fourth Kentucky Volunteers, at |0.15 per day per horse, $1,354.54; that 
a claim for compensation for said services was duly filed under the act of Congress 
approved July 4, 1864, but that said claim has never been paid in whole nor in part; 
that the claimant was loyal to the United States throughout the war of the rebellion. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDING OF FACT. 

During the war for the suppression of the rebellion, the military forces of the United 
States, by proper authority for the use of the Army, took and occupied the stable 
belonging to the claimant, William H. Boswell. The reasonable rental value of said 
building was the sum of five hundred and forty dollars ($540), no part of which appears 
to have been paid. 

By the Court. 

Filed October 29, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 4th day of December, A. D. 1906. 

[seal.] John Eandolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

A. W. RICHARDS, ADMINISTRATOR. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11196. A. W. Richards, administrator of the estate of 
Kinchen Bell, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores, alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by 
resolution of the House of Representatives on the 20th day of February, 1903, for a 
finding of facts, in accordance with the provisions of the act approved March 3, 1887, 
and commonly known as the Tucker Act. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 23d day of 
November, 1904. 

Moyers & Consaul appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by E. C. 
Brandenburg, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations, to wit: 

That he is a resident of the county of Union, State of Kentucky, and is the duly 
appointed, qualified, and acting administrator of the estate of Kinchen Bell, deceased; 
that during the late civil war said decedent resided in said county and State; that 
during said war the United States military forces, under proper authority, took from 
said decedent and converted to the use of the United States Army quartermaster 
stores and commissary supplies of the value of $6,609.70, as follows, to wit: 

Taken from the farm of Kinchen Bell, in Union County, State of Kentucky, about 
August, 1862, by troops under command of Col. James M. Shackelford: 

1 bay mare $150. 00 

1 sorrel horse 150. 00 

2 meals each for 20 officers, at 50 cents each 20. 00 

1,500 poimds cured meat, at 25 cents per pound 375. 00 

10 bushels of meal 15. 00 

350 bushels of corn (2 feeds for 700 horses) 350. 00 

.7 tons hay (2 feeds for 700 horses) 140. 00 

Taken about September, 1862, by Federal troops: 2 horses 300. 00 

Taken in the spring of 1863, by troops under command of Captain Haw- 
kins: 1 sorrel hoi-se 150. 00 

Taken in the summer of 1863, by Major (or Lieutenant-Colonel) Bristow's 

command: 2 gray horses 300. 00 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 135 

Taken in the summer of 1863, by a company of United States Cavalry of 
about 100 men: 

25 bushels of corn |25. GO 

One-half ton of hay 10. 00 

Taken about July, 1863, by a command of 400 to 500 infantry: 1,000 pounds 

of cured meat, at 25 cents per pound 250. 00 

Taken in the spring of 1864: 1 bay horse 100. 00 

Taken in the summer of 1864, by command of Major (or Lieutenant-Colonel) 
Bristow, 400 to 500 cavalry: 

2 meals each for 20 officers, at 50 cents each 20. 00 

1,000 pounds of cured meat, at 25 cents per pound 250. 00 

5 bushels of corn meal 7. 50 

250 bushels of com (2 feeds for 500 horses) 250. 00 

5 tons of hay (2 feeds for 500 horses) 100. 00 

Taken in the fall of 1864, about October: 2 light gray mares 250. 00 

Taken about March, 1865, by about 400 troops under the command of 
Captain Wright: 

1,500 pounds of cured meat, at 25 cents per pound 375. 00 

10 bushels of corn meal 15. 00 

24 pounds of lard, at 30 cents per pound 7. 20 

12,000 pounds of tobacco, consumed, can-ied away, and used for bed- 
ding 3, 000. 00 

Total 6, 609. 70 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS or PACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the claimant's decedent was loyal to the 
Government of the United States throughout the war of the rebellion. 

II. There was taken from the claimant's decedent, in Union County, State of 
Kentucky, during the war of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United 
States for the use of the Army, pi'operty of the kind and character above described, 
which was then ahd there reasonably worth the sum of one thousand four hundred 
and twenty dollars ($1,420), for which no payment appears to have been made. 

III. The claim was not presented to any Department or officer of the Government 
prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court as aforesaid. 

By the Court. 
Filed December 5, 1904. 
A true copv. 

Test this 9th day of December, 1904. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

WILLIAM A. ATTERSALL. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10615. WiOiam A. Attersall v. The United States.] 
statement of case. 

f The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the coiu-t by the Committee 
on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The 
case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 7th day of January, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his dii-ection, appeared for the 
defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant m his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Clarke, in 
the State of Kentucky. 

2. That he, being the second lieutenant of Company A, Twentieth Regiment of 
Kentucky Volunteer InfantrJ^ was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor 
of the State of Kentucky as first lieutenant thereof on June 28, 1864, and that from 
and after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until 
January 17, 1865, when he was mustered out as second lieutenant; said regiment was 
continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for 
this reason and no other, he was refused muster and recognition in the grade of first 
lieutenant during said period. 



136 ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIX CLAIMS. 

3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances 
of a second lieutenant, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties 
of first lieutenant. 

Upon the reports furnished by the "War and Treasui'y Departments and upon other 
evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel, the court makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. William A. Attersall, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States 
and resident in the county of Clarke, in the State of Kentucky. 

2. On June 28, 1864, the said William A. Attersall was second lieutenant of Company 
A, Twentieth Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he 
was mustered out of the service, to wit, on January 17, 1865, the same was and continued 
to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Orders, No. 182, of the War 
Department of June 20, 1863, carrving into effect section 20 of the act of Congress 
approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat., 734). 

The fiTst lieutenant of said Company A, Twentieth Regiment Kentucky Volunteer 
Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of first 
lieutenant devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and per- 
formed all the duties of first lieutenant of said Company A, Twentieth Regiment 
Kentucky Volunteer Infantry, until January 17, 1865, when mustered out as second 
lieutenant. 

The governor of the State of Kentucky also issued to this claimant a commission 
as first lieutenant Company A, Twentieth Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry. 

3. On the said June 28, 1864, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to 
muster this claimant as first lieutenant of said Company A, Twentieth Regiment 
Kentucky Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its minimum 
strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of first lieutenant 
until he was mustered out of the service as second lieutenant. 

4. During the period aforesaid, to wit, from June 28, 1864, to January 17, 1865, this 
claimant employed one servant, not enlisted. 

5. During said period this claimant did not draw rations from the Government. 

6. If the said William A. Attersall should be deemed first lieutenant of Company 
A, Twentieth Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay of 
that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a second-lieutenant, 
which he has received, and that of a first lieutenant, to which he would have been 
entitled had he been mustered for the period from June 28, 1864, to January 17, 1865, 
would amount to $30.74, without deduction for income tax, as reported by the Comp- 
troller of the Treasury. 

7. Income tax, if to be deducted, would amount to $1.66, leaving a balance of twenty- 
nine dollars and eight cents ($29.08). 

By the Court. 
Filed January 7, 1907. 

A. true copy of the finding of fact as filed by the court. 
Test this 9th day of January, 1907. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Cowt of Claims. 

MARY E. MARTIN, ADMINISTRATRIX. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional. No. 12169—195. Mary E. Iilartin, widow (remarried) of Samson M. 
Archer, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Committee 
on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The 
case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 7th day of January, 1907. 

Messrs. Penneljaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and imder his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. ' 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

1. That she is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of Bourbon, 
in the State of Kentucky, and is the widow (remarried) of Samson M. Archer, deceased. 

2. That said Samson M. Archer, being the lieutenant-colonel of the Seventeenth 
Regiment of Iowa Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the 
governor of the State of Iowa as colonel thereof on June 4. 1865. and that from and 
after said date the said Samson M. Archer assumed and performed all the duties of 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIK CLAIMS. 137 

his said grade until August 3, 1865, when he was mustered out as lieutenant-colonel. 
Said regiment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and 
regulation, and for this reason, and no other, said Samson M. Archer was refused mus- 
ter and recognition in the gi-ade of colonel during said period. 

3. That dm'ing said period the said Samson M. Archer was allowed and paid only 
the pay and allowances of a lieutenant-colonel, although he was in the coTitinuous 
performance of the duties of colonel. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other 
evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT.- 

1. Mary E. Martin, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and 
resident of the county of Bourbon, in the State of Kentucky. 

2. On June 4, 1865, Samson M. Archer was lieutenant-colonel of the Seventeenth 
Regiment of Iowa Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was mustered out 
of the service, to wit, on August 3, 1865, the same was and continued to be below the 
minimum number prescribed by General Orders, No. 182, of the War Department 
of June 20, 1863, carrying into ei^ect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 
3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 734). 

The colonel of said Seventeenth Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry being then 
and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of colonel devolved upon said 
Samuel M. Archer, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all the duties 
of colonel of said Seventeenth Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry until August 3, 1865. 

The governor of the State of Iowa also issued to said Samson M. Archer a commis- 
sion as colonel Seventeenth Regiment of Iowa Volunteer Infantry. 

3. On the said June 4, 1865, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to 
muster the said Samson M. Archer as colonel of said Seventeenth Regiment of Iowa 
Volunteer Infantry solely ))ecause his command was below its minimum strength, 
as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of colonel until he was mus- 
tered out of the service as lieutenant-colonel. 

6. If the said Samson M. Archer should be deemed colonel of said Seventeenth 
Regiment of Iowa Volunteer Infantry and entitled to the pay of that grade, the dif- 
ference between his pay and allowances as a lieutenant-colonel, which he has received, 
and that of a colonel, "to which he would have been entitled had he ])een mustered 
from the period from June 4, 1865, to August 3, 1865, would amount to S115.70, includ- 
ing a short payment of $3.20, as reported by the Auditor for the War Department. 

7. Income tax, if to be deducted, would amount to S5.63, leaving a lialance of one 
hundred and ten dollars and seven cents ($110.07). 

By the Court. 
Filed January 7, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 9th day of January, 1907. 

[seal.] , John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

JAMES M. HALL. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10955. James M. Hall v. -The United States.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken Iry or 
furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war 
for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that 
James M. Hall, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from 
whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the 
United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed March 19, 1906. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 10955. .Tames M. Hall r. The United States.] 
statement op case. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the 
House of Representatives on the 27th day of January, 1903. 



138 ALLOWAI^CE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

On a preliminary inqniry the comt, on the 19th day of March, 1906, found that 
the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or fi-om whom they were 
alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- 
out said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 18th day of January, 1907. 

Watson E. Coleman, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

That he is a citizen of the United States, residing at Mount Sterling, Ky.; that 
during the late civil war stores and supplies were taken by or furnished to the United 
States Army for their use at or near Mount Sterling, Ky., said stores and supplies 
belonging to Burroughs & Hall, and being valued at $3,027, as follows: 

9 barrels of pure copper whisky, 378 gallons, at |4 per gallon $1, 512 

4 barrels pure apple brandy, 168 gallons, at $5 per gallon 840 

1 barrel Holland gin, imported, 43 gallons, at $5 per gallon '. 215 

1 barrel ginger wine, 40 gallons, at |3 per gallon 120 

6 barrels spirits, 85 gallons, at $4 per gallon 340 

Total ' 3, 027 

Claimant further alleges that he is the surviving member of the fu-m of Burroughs 
& Hall, and that J. William Burroughs was the only other member of said firm; that 
the claim herein was presented to the War Department and by it rejected and dis- 
allowed. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDING OP PACT. 

During the late civil war James M. Hall and J. W. Burroughs were the owners of 
the whisky and other liquors described in the petition' at Mount Sterling, Ky. In 
the early part of 1865 the military forces of the United States seized and confiscated 
said whisky and liquors on the ground that the claimants were selling same to the 
enlisted men in violation of the order of the commandant of the troops then stationed 
at that place. The whisky and liquors were taken away in wagons by said military 
forces, but what use was made of them does not appear to the satisfaction of the court. 

The reasonable value of the whisky and liquors so taken was at the time and place 
about fifteen hundred dollars ($1,500). The one-half thereof, or the interest of the 
said James M. Hall, whose claim was referred to the court, was seven hundred and 
fifty dollars ($750). 

The claim of the said J. W. Burroughs has not been referred to the court, and for 
that reason his intervening petition is dismissed. 

By the Court. 

Filed February 25, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 13th day of December, A. D. 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

THOMAS R. HILL. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11168. Thomas R. HiU v. The United States.] 
STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court on the 8th day of January, 1902, by reso- 
lution of the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives under an act of 
Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act:^ 

[H. R. 8262, Fifty-seventh Congress, first session.] 
•'A BILL For the relief of Thomas R. Hill. 

'f- "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay the sum of nine hundred and eighty-seven dollars and fifty 
cents to Thomas R. Hill, of Bath County, Kentucky, for property taken from him by 
the Army of the United States during the late war." 



ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. Ic9 

The claimant appeared and filed his petition in this court September 3, 1903, in 
which he makes the following allegations: 

That during the war for the suppression of the rebellion he resided in Bath County , 
Ky., and throughout said war was loyal to the Government of the United States; that 
during said period two or three regiments of caA^alry belonging to the Federal Army 
were encamped at "Mollie Gill," about 2 miles from his residence; that the base pick- 
ets of this camp were stationed on the public road near the house and premises of claim- 
ant; that these pickets immediately began to use feed and grain belonging to him, and 
so continued to use and feed same for a period of from three to four weeks; that the 
amount and value of such feed and grain was as follows: 

650 bushels of corn, at |1 per bushel $650. 00 

675 dozen bushels of oats, at 50 cents per bushel 337. 50 

Total 987. 50 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 22d day of December, 
1904. R.. W. Haynes, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of coun- 
sel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that Thomas R. Hill was loyal to the Government 
throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the 
United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took from the claimant in 
Bath County, State of Kentucky, property as above described, which at the time and 
place was reasonably worth the sum of four hundred and ninety-five dollars ($495). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

III. The claim was not presented to any Department of the Government prior to its 
presentation to Congress and reference to this court under the provisions of the act of 
March 3, 1887. No evidence has been offered by the claimant under said reference 
"bearing upon the question whether there has been delay or laches in presenting the 
claim * * * and no facts bearing upon the question whether the bar of any statute 
of limitation should be removed and which shall be claimed to excuse the claimant for 
not having resorted to any established legal remedy." 

By the Court. 
Filed January 3, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 6th day of January, 1905. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

ST. ANDREWS LODGE, NO. 18, FREE AND ACCEPTED MASONS, OF 

CYNTHIANA, KY. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11182. St. Andrews Lodge, No. 18, Free and Accepted Masons, 
of Cynthiana, Ky., v. United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court February 20, 1903, by resolution of the 
United States House of Representatives, under an act of Congress approved March 3, 
1887, known as the Tucker Act: 

"A BILL For the benefit of Saint Andrews Lodge, Numbered Eighteen, Free and Accepted Masons, 

of Cynthiana, Kentucky. 

"£e it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay to Saint Andrews Lodge, Numbered Eighteen, Free and 
Accepted Masons, of Cynthiana, Kentucky, the sum of one thousand two hundred and 
forty-six dollars and fifty cents, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appro- 
priated, as compensation and payment for the use, occupancy, and destruction of the 
property of said lodge by the United States forces operating in Kentucky during the 
war of the rebellion." 



140 ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. 

The officers of the St. Andrews Lodge, Free and Accepted Masons, No. 18, of Cyn- 
thiana, Ky., appeared and filed their petition in this court on the 15th day of May, 
1903, in which they make the following allegations: 

That during the war for the suppression of the rebellion^ and from about the 1st day 
of Jime, 1864, to October 1, 1864, the United States military forces, by proper author- 
ity, but without consent or any lease or contract occupied the room of said lodge, for 
the purpose of use of the United States military forces and most of the time by order 
of James B. Michaner, late captain Company H, One hundred and sixty-second 
Regiment Ohio Infantry Volunteers, and during said occupancy said room was sub- 
jected to damage which required a large amount to repair and place the property m 
the same order as it was when the United States military forces took the room as afore- 
said, the value of said rent and damage which is reasonably claimed is $1,200, for 
which no payment has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on the 5th day of April, 1905. Simon Lyon, esq_. , 
appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by C. F. Kincheloe, esq his 
assistant and under his dkection, appeared for the defense and protection of the 
interests of the United States. . 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments ot 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF PACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that St. Andrews Lodge, No. 18, Free and Accei)ted 
Masons, of Cynthiana, Ivy., as a lodge, was loyal to the Government of the United 
States tliroughout the late war of the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of tJie 
United States, by proper authoritv, took possession of and used and occupied tlie hall 
belonging to the Free and Accepted Masons of St. Andrews Lodge, No. 18, ot Cynthi- 
ana Ky , for military purposes, and during such occupancy greatly damaged the 
same The reasonajjle rental value of said hall during the time it was so occupied, 
including the cost of repairs necessary to restore the hall to the condition it was when 
such occupancy began, was the sum of six hundred dollars (S600). 

No pavment'appeai-s to have been made therefor. ^ . i ^ 

III. The claim was never presented to any department or ofhcer of the Govern- 
ment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court as aforesaid. 

By the Court. 
Filed April 18, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 15th day of March, 1906. 

[SEAL.] ' , . John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Clatms. 

J. HARRISON PLANCK AND P. S. DUDLEY. 

rCourt of Claims. Congressional, No. 11215. J. Harrison Planck and PS. Dudley, trustees of the 
Baptist Church of Flemingsburg, Ky., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF THE CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court February 20, 1903, by resolution of the 
House of Representatives under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known 
as the Tucker Act: 

"[H. R. 13050, Fifty-seventh Congress, first session.] 

"A BILL For relief of Baptist Church of Flemingsburg. Ky. 

"Be it enacted by the Senaie and House of Representatires of the United States of America 
in Conor ess assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pav to the Baptist Church of Flemingslnirg, Kentucky, tlie sum 
of one thousand dollars," for rent and use of and conversion of the building and prop- 
erty of said church bv the Army of the United States during the war of the rebellion. 

The claimants, the trustees of the Baptist Church of Flemingsburg. Ky., appeared 
and filed their petition in the court June 14, 1903, in which they make the toUowmg 

^ The claimants are the duly elected and qualified trustees of the Baptist Church of 
Flemino-sburg, Kv., a church society dulv organized, on the 15th day ot June. 184U, 
in accordance with the laws of the State of Kentucky, under which organization and 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIjS^ CLAIMS. 141 

laws and amendments thereto it has ever since and still exists, and under which laws 
and amendments thereto the claimants as such trustees are the owners of a certain 
tract of ground in Flemingsburg, Ky., and improvements thereon, consisting of 
fences and a chm-cli building containing all the necessary furniture and fittings, and 
known as the Baptist Church of Flemi'ngsburg, Ky., and as such legal owners and 
by virtue of the laws of the State of Kentucky the claimants are entitled to bring this 
suit. 

At intervals during the period of the late civil war, and particularly during the years 
1863, 1864, and 1865, troops of the Federal army camped in and around the said Bap- 
tist Church of Flemingsburg, Ky., and at other intervals during the same period used 
the said church building and grounds for hospital purposes, and excluded the claim- 
ant trustees and their predecessors in interest from their customary and lawful use 
thereof during the whole of the period aforesaid. The fair and reasonable rental 
value of the said premises covering the period of time they were appropriated to the 
use of the United States authorities was at least four himdred dollars (§400). 

While the premises were occupied by or under the control of the United States 
authorities, as stated in the preceding paragraph, the soldiers destroyed the fence 
suiTounding the church, tore away and removed the pulpit, floors, and seats, de- 
stroyed the window lights and sashes in the chm-ch, shot holes through the ceiling 
and rendered the premises entirely unfit for their accustomed uses. The fences, 
seats, pulpit, window sashes and all other wooden material that could be taken from 
the grounds and building without absolutely destroying the liuilding were taken and 
used by the soldiers as firewood. All the acts envmierated herein were performed 
hy the soldiers under the direction or with the consent of their commanding officers. 
A fair and reasonable estimate of the damages committed by the soldiers, as herein 
described, would not be less than six hundred dollars (S600), which sum was actually 
expended by the predecessors of the claimants in replacing the fencing, windows, 
seats, floors, pulpit, and repairing the damages committed, as described. 

All the property described herein was the property of the claimants, or their 
predecessors in interest. No payment for the use of the property, or for its damage 
as herein described, has been made by the United States, in whole or in part, though 
frequent demand has been made for such payment. There has been no laches in the 
prosecution of this claim. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 7th day of February, 
1905. Messrs. Dudley & Michener appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney- 
General, by F. DeC. Faust, esci.. his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interest of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

• I. It appears from the evidence that the Baptist Church of Flemingsburg, Ky., as 
a church was loyal to the Government of the United States during the war for the 
suppression of the rebellion. 

n. At intervals during the period of the late civil war, and particularly during the 
years 1863, 1864, 1865, United States troops, by proper aiithority, used and occupied 
the church building and grounds of the Baptist Church of Flemingslnirg, Ky., for 
hospital purposes. "The reasonable rental value of said church and grounds during 
the periods they were so occupied and the damage thereto was the sum of seven hun- 
dred and seventy-five dollars (S775),. for which no payment appears to have been 
made. 

III. The claim was not presented to the commissioners of claims under the act of 
March 3, 1871, and is consequently barred luider the provisions of the act of June 
15, 1878 (20 Stat. L.. p. 550, sec. 5). Under the act of March 3, 1887 (24 Stat. L., 
p. 505, sec. 14), which provides that where there has been delay or laches in pre- 
senting a claim, the court shall report whether there are "any facts bearing upon the 
question whether the bar of any statute of limitation should be removed or which 
shall be claimed to excuse the claimant for not having resorted to any established 
legal remedy," it is shown that in consequence of the ignorance of the law on the 
part of the trustees of said church the case was not presented to the Quartermaster- 
General until July, 1876; that the claim remained in the Quartermaster-Generars 
Office for ten years, the papers having been mislaid. The claim was then sent to the 
Auditor, where it stayed until 1893. ' The claim was then presented to Congress and 
referred to this court under the Bowman Act. remaining in the court eight years, when 
it was finally dismissed for want of prosecution. The claim was then referred under 
the Tucker Act, in February, 1903. ^ 



1'42 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

As to whether these facts are sufficient or insufficient to excuse the claimant the 
court makes no finding, that question being exclusively within the judgment and dis- 
cretion of Congress. 

By the Court. 

Filed February 13, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 10th day of November, 1905. 

[seal.] John Randolph. 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, LEBANON, KY. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12219. First Presbyterian Church, at Lebanon, Ky., v. The 

United States.] " 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

This is a claim for use and occupation alleged to have been taken or furnished to the 
military forces of the United States during the war for the suppression of the rebellion. 
On the 31st day of March, 1906, the House of Representatives referred to the court a bill 
in the following words: 

"[H. R. 6674, Fifty-ninth Congress, first session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of the First Presbyterian Church at Lebanon, Kentucky. 

" Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and is hereby, authorized 
and directed to pay to the First Presbyterian Church at Lebanon, in Kentucky, out 
of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of six thousand 
one hundred and ten dollars, for the use and occupation of the church building and 
furniture and fixtures pertaining to and in and about said building and injuries to 
same, and the destruction of some of the property in and about said building by the 
military forces of the United States during the war of the rebellion; and said sum shall, 
when paid, be in full of all claims of said church against the United States for the use of 
or damages to its property by said Army. ' ' 

The claimant appeared and filed a petition herein September 4, 1906. in which it is 
substantially averred that — 

During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the First Presbyterian Church of 
Lebanon. Ky., was loyal to the United States; that from 1862 to 1865, inclusive, said 
building was occupied and used by the United States troops and damaged, the fixtures 
and furniture, in the sum of $6,110. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyaltv and merits on the 7th day of February. 
1907. ■ 

Messrs. Calhoun & Sizer appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by ' 
Percy M. Cox, his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and pro- 
tection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The First Presbyterian Church of Lebanon, Ky., as a church, was loyal to the 
Government of the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebel- 
lion. 

II. During the late civil war the military forces of the United States, for their use, 
took possession of the church building described in the petition at or about the time 
of the battle of Perryville and used the same at intervals for a period of about two years. 
The building was first used as a hospital and afterwards as a barracks, and later was a 
fort for the troops, and while so used and occupied by the military forces of the United 
States as a fort was fired upon by the Confederate forces under the late Gen. John H. 
Morgan and the roof and cupola of the church materially damaged, but the extent 
thereof does not appear. 

The reasonable rental value of the church building during such occupancy, together 
with the damages thereto caused by the military forces of the United States (inde- 
pendently of any damage caused by said Confederate forces under General Morgan), 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 143 

in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was tlie sum of fifteen hundred dollars ($1,500), of 
which amount it appears that the claimant has been paid the sum of one hvmdred and 
twenty dollars ($120), leaving thirteen hundred and eighty dollars ($1,380) due on 
account of the use and occupation by the United States military forces and for the 
damages occasioned by said use and occupation. 

III. The claim herein was never presented to any Department of the Government 
prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by the House of Repre- 
sentatives, as hereinbefore mentioned, and no reason is given why the same was not 
previously presented to some Department of the Government. 

By the Court. 

Filed February 11, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 10th day of December, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

TRUSTEES OF THE BAPTIST CHURCH, OF SOMERSET. KY. 

[ Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11719. Trustees of the Baptist Church, of Scmerset, Ky., v. 

The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of the 
United States Senate, under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as 
the Tucker Act: 

" [S. 4871, Fifty-eighth Congress, second session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Baptist Church, at Somerset, Ky. 

"i?e it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assevihled, That the Secretary of the Treasuiy be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 
to the trustees of the Baptist Church at Somerset, Kentucky, the sum of two thousand 
dollars for use of and damage to their church property by the military forces of the 
United States during the late civil war.'" 

The trustees of the Baptist Church of Somerset, Ky.. appeared and filed their 
petition in this court July 30, 1904, in which they make the following allegations: 

That during the month of February, 18C2, the military forces of the United States, 
by proper authority, took possession of the church building of the said Baptist 
Church and used and occupied the same for hospital purposes from said date until 
on or about April, 1865. That by reason of such occupancy repairs were necessary, 
and the reasonable value of said building during said occupancy, including the 
repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition in which it was before such 
occupation was the sum of $2,000. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 6th day of Febru- 
ary, 1905. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney- 
General, by Malcolm A. Coles, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared 
for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, m.akes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the Baptist Church of Somerset, Ky., as a 
church, was loyal to the Government of the United States during the war of the 
rebellion. 

, II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion, from February, 1862, to 
April, 1865, United States troops, under proper authority, took possession of the 
church building of the Baptist Church, at Somerset, Ky., and used and occupied the 
same for military purposes, being used as a hospital; by reason of such occupancy 
repairs were necessary, and the reasonable rental value of said church building dur- 
ing the period it was so occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore said 
building to theVondition in which it was when said occupancv began, was the sum 
of ($1,500) fifteen hundred dollars. 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 



144 allowa:n^ce of certain claims. 

III. The claim was never presented to any Department or officer of the Govern- 
ment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court under the Tucker 
Act aforesaid. 

By the Court. 

Filed February 24, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 24th day of February, 1905. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

ELIZABETH MAGRUDER. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10734. Elizabeth Magruder, niece of Alexander Magruder, v. 

The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- 
mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. 
The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 6th day of November, 1905. 

Messrs. Pennebaker and Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

1. That she is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of Nelson, 
in the State of Kentucky, and is the niece and heir at law of Alexander Magruder, 
deceased. 

2. That said Alexander Magruder being the major of the Twenty-seventh Regiment 
of Kentucky Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the gov- 
ernor of the State of Kentucky as lieutenant-colonel thereof on April 21, 1864, and 
that from and after said date the said Alexander Magruder assumed and performed 
all the difties of his said grade until March 21, 1865, when he was mustered out as 
major; said regiment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed 
by law and regulation, and for this reason and no other said Alexander Magruder was 
refused muster and recognition in the grade of lieutenant-colonel during said period. 

3. That during said period the said Alexander Magruder was allowed and paid 
only the pay and allowances of a major, although he was in the continuous performance 
of the duties of lieutenant-colonel. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments, and upon 
other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following 

FINDINGS OF PACT. 

1. Elizabeth Magruder, niece and heir at law of Alexander Magruder, deceased, 
the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county 
of Nelson, in the State of Kentucky. 

2. On April 21, 1864, Alexander Magi'uder was major of the Twenty-seventh Regi- 
ment of Kentucky Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was mustered out 
of the service, to wit, on March 21, 1865, the same was and continued to be below the 
minimum number prescribed by General Orders, No. 182, of the War Department 
of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 
3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 734). 

The lieutenant-colonel of said the Twenty-seventh Regiment Kentucky Volunteer 
Infantry being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of lieutenant- 
colonel devolved upon said Alexander Magruder, who then and thereafter assumed 
and performed all the duties of lieutenant-colonel of said the Twenty-seventh Regi- 
ment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry imtil March 21, 1865, when he was mustered out 
of the service. 

The governor of the State of Kentucky also issued to said Alexander Magruder a 
commission as lieutenant-colonel of the Twenty-seventh Regiment of Kentucky 
Volunteer Infantry. 

3. On the said April 21, 1864, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to 
muster the said Alexander Magruder as lieutenant-colonel of the Twenty-seventh 
Regiment of Kentucky Volunteer Infantry solely because his command was below 
its minimum strength as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of 
lieutenant-colonel until he was mustered out of the service as major. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 145 

4. If the said Alexander Magruder should be deemed lieutenant-colonel of the 
Twenty-seventh Pvegiment of Kentucky Volunteer Infantry and entitled to the pay 
of that gi'ade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a major which he has 
received and that of a lieutenant-colonel, to which he would have been entitled had 
he been mustered from the period from April 21, 1864, to March 21, 1865, would amount 
to $220.56, as reported by the Auditor for the War Department, after making deduc- 
tions for income tax and overpayments subsequent to March 21, 1865, and allowing 
underpayments prior to April 21, 1864. 

Filed November 1, 1905. 

A true copy of findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 6th day of December, 1905. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of ClaiTtis. 

DANIEL MANS. 
[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11199. Daniel Mans v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court on the 18th day of March, 1903, by 
resolution of the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives under 
an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act: 

[H. R. 10349, Fifty-seventli Congress, first session.] 
"A BII<L For the relief of Daniel Mans. 

"Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of Amei-ica 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury is, and he is hereby, directed 
to pay to Daniel Mans, of Maysville, Kentucky, the sum of five hundred dollars 
out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for property taken and 
used by the Army of the United States during the war of the rebellion." 

The claimant appeared and filed his petition in this court October 28, 1903, in which 
he makes the following allegations : 

That he was a resident of Goochland County, State of Virginia, during the war for 
the suppression of the rebellion, and throughout said war was loyal to the Govern- 
ment of the United States; that during said period he was the owner of a stallion of 
good size, about three years old, and in good condition, and also the owner of a sorrel 
mare, large and strong, six years old, and in good condition; that the stallion and 
mare were reasonably worth the sum of $500; that during the month of March, 1864, 
the said stallion and mare were taken from him by soldiers attached to Sheridan's 
army and never returned or paid for. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on December 22, 1904. 
R. W. Haynes, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by W. W. 
Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protec- 
tion of the the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that Daniel Mans was loyal to the Government of 
the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the 
United States, by proper authority, for their use took from claimant, in Goochland 
County, Va., two horses as above described, which at the time and place were reason- 
ably worth the sum of two hundred and fifty dollars ($250). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

III. The claim was not presented to any department of the Government prior to 
its presentation to Congress and reference to this court under the provisions of the 
act of March 3, 1887. No evidence is offered by the claimant under said reference 
"bearing upon the question whether there has been delay or laches in presenting 
the claim * * * and no facts bearing upon the question whether the bar of any 

H. Rep. 543, 60-1 10 



146 ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIjST CLAIMS. 

statute of limitation should be removed and wliicli shall be claimed to excuse the 
claimant for not having resorted to any established legal remedy." 

By THEaCoURT. 

Filed January 3, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 6th day of January, 1905. 

[seal.] ' John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court_of Claims. 

SAMUEL P. MARTIN. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 1122.5. Samuel P. Martin v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

This is a claim for services alleged to have been rendered by claimant to the military 
forces of the United States and for property taken by said forces during the late civil 
war. 

On the 18th day of January, 1903, the House of Representatives by resolution 
referred to the court, under the provisions of the act of March 3, 1887, known as the 
Tucker Act, a bill as follows: 

"[H. R. 3537, o7th Congress, 1st session.] 
"A BILL For the relief of S. P. Martin. 

"Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, 'Ih&t the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay to S. P. Martin, of Anderson County, Kentucky, three hun- 
dred and thirty dollars, for property belonging to said Martin taken and consumed by 
the Army of the United States during the war foi' the suppression of the rebellion, and 
to be paid out of any money not otherwise appropriated." 

The claimant appeared and filed his petition in this court January 29, 1903. On 
April 17, 1906, he filed an amended petition in which he made substantially the fol- 
lowing allegations: That he is a native citizen of the United States and a resident of 
Tyrone, Anderson County, Ky., and was loyal to the United States throughout the 
civil war: that from October, 1862, until some time in the fall of 1864 he was lessee 
of Shryrocks Ferry on the Kentucky River, connecting the turnpike between Law- 
renceliurg and Versailles, Ky. 

That from October 1. 1862, until the fall of 1864 he ferried over the Kentucky River 
5,000 cavalry and 1,000 infantry, all soldiers of the United States, and received no 
pay therefor; tliat in tlie year 1864 United States troops used for fuel three large coal 
barges belonging to claimant, 16 by 18 feet, and valued at $125 each: that in July, 1863, 
a detacliment of Union troops destroyed one large ferryboat belonging to claimant, 12 
by 65 feet, and valued at .|350, and one smaller ferryboat, 12 by 34 feet, valued at $100; 
that in 1864 the Union troops destroyed two large ferryboats, 12 by 65 feet, belonging 
to claimant and valued at $350 each; that some time in 1862 United States troops 
destroyed two large ferryboats, 12 by 65 feet, belonging to claimant, valued at §350 
each ; that the total claim of Samuel P. Martin by reason of the use of this ferry and his 
coal barges by Union troops and the destruction of his ferryboats as aforesaid was as 
follows: 

Ferrying troops across the Kentuclcy River $1, 100. 00 

Value of coal barges taken for fuel 375. 00 

Value of ferryboats seized and destroyed 1, 850. 00 

Amounting in all to 3, 325. 00 

On a preliminary hearing the court, on the 13th day of November, 1905, found that 
Samuel P. Martin, the person from whom it is alleged the property herein claimed for 
was taken, was loyal to the United States throughout the late civil war. 

The case was brought to a liearing on merits on the 28th day of Octoljer, 1907. 

Charles W. (lagett, escj., appeared for the claimant, and the .\ttorney-Genei"al, by 
W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on l)oth sides, makes the following 



ALL0\VA2^CE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 147 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. Samuel P. Martin was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout 
the late civil war, as heretofore, on November 13, 1905, found by the court. 

II. During the late civil war the claimant herein was the lessee of certain ferryboats 
described in the petition plying across the Kentucky River and connecting the turn- 
pike between Lawrenceburg and Versailles, Ky., over which he femed United States 
troops at various times from October 1, 1862, to the fall of 1864. 

III. During said period the military forces of the United States took from said claim- 
ant certain ferryboats and coal barges, and destroyed the same and used the material 
therein contained for fuel, as more particularly set forth in the petition. 

IV. The reasonable value of the said ferryboats so used in transporting troops across 
the river, together with the value of the boats and barges so destroyed and used as fuel, 
was the sum of three hundred and thirty dollars ,($.330), no part of which appears to have 
been paid. 

V. It is contended by the claimant that in 1864 the claim herein was put in the hands 
of a lawyer for prosecution, but that he lost the papers. In 1884 the claim was pre- 
sented to the Quartermaster-General and disallowed by the accounting officers of the 
Treasury on January 7, 1888, for want of sufficient evidence. Thereafter, on January 
18, 1903, the House of Representatives, by resolution, referred to the court the claim 
under the ijrovisions of the act of March 3, 1887, as hereinbefore mentioned. 

These facts are reported as bearing upon the question whether there has been delay 
or laches on the part of the claimant in prosecuting his claim. 

By the Court. 
Filed November 4, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 7th day of December, A. D. 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

ie\TE W. MILWARD. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10739. Kate W. Milward, widow of Hubbard K. Milward, v. 

The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- 
mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. 
The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 13th day of November, 1905. 

Messrs. Pennebaker and Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant a"hd under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

1. That she is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of Fayette, 
in the State of Kentucky, and is the widow of Hubbard K. Milward, deceased. 

2. That said Hubbard K. Milward, being the lieutenant-colonel of the Eighteenth 
Regiment of Kentucky Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by 
the governor of the State of Kentucky as colonel thereof on December 19, 1863, and 
that from and after said date the said Hubbard K. Milward assumed and performed all 
the duties of his said grade until July 24, 1865, when he was mustered out as lieutenant- 
colonel; said regiment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law 
and regulation, and for this reason and no other said Hubbard K. Milward was refused 
muster and recognition in the grade of colonel during said period. 

3. That during said period the said Hubbard K. Milward was allowed and paid only 
the pay and allowances of a lieutenant-colonel, although he was in the continuous per- 
formance of the duties of colonel. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other 
evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. Kate W. Milward is the widow of Hubbard K. Milward, the claimant in this case, 
is a citizen of the United States, and resident of the county of Fayette, in the State of 
Kentucky. 



148 ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. 

2. On December 19, 1863, Hubbard Iv. Milward was lieutenant-colonel of the Eigh- 
teenth Regiment of Kentucky Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was 
mustered out of the service, to wit, on July 24, 1865, the same was and continued to be 
below the minimum number prescribed by General Orders, No. 182, of the War Depart- 
ment, of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved 
March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., 734). 

The colonel of said Eighteenth Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry being 
then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of colonel devolved upon 
said Hubbard K. Milward, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all the 
duties of colonel of said Eighteenth Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry until 
July 24, 1865. 

The governor of the State of Kentucky also issued to said Hubbard K. Milward a 
commission as colonel of the Eighteenth Regiment of Kentucky Volunteer Infantry. 

3. On the said December 19, 1863, the mustering officers then and thereafter refused 
to muster the said Hubbard K. Milward as colonel of said Eighteenth Regiment of 
Kentucky Volunteer Infantry solely because his command was below its minimum 
strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of colonel until he 
was mustered out of the service as lieutenant-colonel. 

4. During the period aforesaid, to wit, from December 19, 1863, to July 24, 1865, 
the said Hubbard K. Milward employed two servants, not enlisted. 

5. During said period the said Hubbard K. Milward did not draw rations from the 
Government. - 

6. If the said Hubbard K. Milward should be deemed colonel of the Eighteenth 
Regiment of Kentucky Volunteer Infantry and entitled to the pay of that grade, the 
difference bet weenhis pay and allowances as a lieutenant-colonel , which he has received , 
and that of a colonel, to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered 
from the period from December 19, 1863, to July 24, 1865, would amount to ig545.10, 
without making any deduction for difference in income tax, as reported by the Auditor 
for the War Department. 

The difference in income tax amounts to $24.18, and if to be deducted would leave 
1520.92. 
Filed November 2, 1905. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 6th day of December, 1905. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

MIRIAM F. MUNDAY, WIDOW OF JESSE S. MUNDAY. 

Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-117. Miriam F. Munday, widow of Jesse S. Munday, 
deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- 
mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 27th day of March, 1906. 
The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 13th day of May, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
fey James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

1. That she is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of Mercer, 
in the State of Kentucky, and is the widow of Jesse S. Munday, deceased. 

2. That said Jesse S. Munday, being the sergeant of Company D, Sixth Regiment 
Kentucky Volunteer Cavalry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the gov- 
ernor of the State of Kentucky as second lieutenant thereof on December 31, 1864, and 
that from and after said date the said Jesse S. Munday assumed and performed all 
the duties of his said grade until July 1, 1865, when he was mustered in as such; said 
regiment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regu- 
lation, and for this reason, and no other, said Jesse S. Munday was refused muster 
and recognition in the grade of second lieutenant during said period. 

3. That during said period the said Jesse S. Munday was allowed and paid only 
the pay and allowances of a sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance 
of the duties of second lieutenant. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other 
evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the couit makes the following 



ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIlSr CLAIMS. 149 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. Miriam F. Muiiday, the claimant of this case, is a citizen of the United States 
and resident of the county of Mercer, in the State of Kentucky. 

2. On December 30, 1864, Jesse S. Munday- was sergeant of Company D, Sixth 
Regiment of Kentucky Volunteer Cavalry. On that date and until he was mustered 
into the service — to wit, on July 1, 1865 — the same was and continued to be below the 
minimum number prescribed by General Order No. 182, of the War Department 
of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 
3, 1863. (12 Stat. L., 734.) 

The second lieutenant of said Company D, Sixth Regiment Kentucky Volunteer 
Cavalry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of second 
lieutenant devolved upon said Jesse S. Munday, who then and thereafter assumed 
and performed all the duties of second lieutenant of said Company D, Sixth Regi- 
ment Kentucky Volunteer Cavalry, until July 1, 1865, when he was mustered in as 
such. 

The governor of the State of Kentucky also issued to said Jesse S. Munday a com- 
mission as second lieutenant. Company D, Sixth Regiment of Kentucky Volunteer 
Cavalry. 

3. On the said December 30, 1864, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused 
to muster the said Jesse S. Munday as second lieutenant of said Company D, Sixth 
Regiment of Kentucky Volunteer Cavalry, solely because his'command was below 
its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of 
second lieutenant until he was mustered into the service as such, July 1, 1865. 

4. If the said Jesse S. Munday should be deemed second lieutenant of Company D, 
Sixth Regiment of Kentucky Volunteer Cavalry, and entitled to the pay of that 
grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a sergeant, which he has 
receivecT and that of a second lieutenant, without servant, to which he would have 
been entitled had he been mustered from the period from December 30, 1864, to 
June 30, 1865, would amount to $501.86 (five hundred and one dollars and eighty-six 
cents), as reported by the Auditor for the War Department. 

By the Court. 
Filed May 13, 1907. 

A true copv of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 16th day of May, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

ION B. NALL. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10754. Ion B. Nali v. The United States.] 
STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- 
mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. 
The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 13th day of November, 1905. 

Messrs. Pennebaker and Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: ^ 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of Jefferson, 
in the State of Kentucky. 

2. That he, being the captain of Company F, Seventeenth Regiment of Kentucky 
Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State 
of Kentucky as lieutenant-colonel thereof on December 19, 1864, and that from and 
after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said gi-ade until January 
23, 1865, when he was mustered out as captain. Said regiment was continuously 
below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason and 
.no other he was refused muster and recognition in the grade of lieutenant-colonel 
during said period. . r^-r^h^-A 

3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances 
of a captain, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of lieutenant - 
colonel. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other 
evidence, and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following 



150 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIJsT CLAIMS. 

FINDINGS OP FACT. ^ 

1. Ion B. Nail, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and resi- 
dent in the county of Jefferson, in the State of Kentucky. 

2. On December 19, 1864, the said Ion B. Nail was captain of Company F, Seven- 
teenth Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was mus- 
tered out the service — to wit, on January 23, 1865 — the same was and continued to be 
below the minimum number prescribed by General Order No. 182 of the War Depart- 
ment of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved 
March 3, 1863. (12 Stat. L., p. 734.) 

The lieutenant-colonel of said Seventeenth Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry 
being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of lieutenant-colonel 
devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all the 
duties of lieutenant-colonel of said Seventeenth Regiment Kentucky Volvmteer Infan- 
try until January 23, 1865, when mustered out. 

The governor of the State of Kentucky also issued to this claimant a commission 
as lieutenant-colonel Seventeenth Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry. 
^^3. On the said December 23, 1865, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused 
to muster this claimant as lieutenant-colonel of said Seventeenth Regiment Kentucky 
Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its minimum strength, as 
aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of lieutenant-colonel until he 
was mustered out the»service as captain of Company F. 

4. Diu-ing the period aforesaid — to wit, from December 19, 1864, to January 23, 
1865, this claimant employed only one ser\'ant, not enlisted. 

6. If the said Ion B. Nail should be deemed lieutenant-colonel of the Seventeenth 
Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay of that grade, the 
difference between his pay and allowances as a captain, which he has received, and 
that of a lieutenant-colonel, to which he would have been entitled had he b?en mus- 
tered for the period from December 19, 1864, to January 23, 1865, would amount to 
$46.40 without making any deduction for difference in income tax, as reported by the 
Auditor for the War Department. 

7. The difference in the income tax is $2.32, and if to be deducted would leave a 
balance of 144.08. 

Filed November 2, 1905. 

A true copv of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 
Test this 6th day of December, 1905. 

[seal.] - John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerh Court of Claims. 

JOHN W. ROBBINS. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10777. John W. Robbins v. The United States.] 
STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- 
mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. 
The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 7th day of January, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Bracken, 
in the State of Kentucky. 

2. That he, being tlie major Eighteenth Regiment of Kentucky Volunteer Infantry, 
was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State of Kentucky as 
lieutenant-colonel thereof on December 19, 1863, and that from and after said date 
he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until November 9, 1864, 
when he was mustered out as major: said regiment was continuously below the mini- 
mum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, he 
was refused muster and recognition in the grade of lieutenant-colonel during said 
period. 

3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances 
of a major, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of lieutenant- 
colonel. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other 
evidence and upon briefs and argimients of counsel the court makes the following 



ALLOWAlSrCE OF CERTAIIST CLAIMS. ^ 151 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. John W. Robbins, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and 
resident in the county of Bracken, in the State of Kentucky. 

2. On December 19, 1863, the said John W. Robbins was major, Eighteenth Regi- 
ment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was mustered out 
of the service, to wit, on November 9, 1864, the same was and continued to be below 
the minimum number prescribed by General Orders, No. 182, of the War Department 
of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 
1863 (12 Stat. L., 734). 

The lieutenant-colonel of said Eighteenth Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry 
being then and thereafter promoted colonel, the duties of lieutenant-colonel devolved 
upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all the duties 
of lieutenant-colonel of said Eighteenth Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry 
until discharged as major November 9, 1864. 

The governor of the State of Kentucky also issued to this claimant a commission as 
lieutenant-colonel Eighteenth Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry. 

3. On the said December 19, 1863, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused 
to muster this claimant as lieutenant-colonel of said Eighteenth Re.giment Kentucky 
Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its minimum strength, 
as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of lieutenant-colonel until 
he was mustered out of the service as major. 

4. If the said John W. Robbins should be deemed lieutenant-colonel of Eighteenth 
Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay of that grade, the 
difference between his pay and allowances as a major, which he has received, and 
that of a lieutenant-colonel, to which he would have been entitled had he been mus- 
tered for the period fi'om December 19, 1863, to November 9, 1864, would amount to 
$263, without any deduction for income tax, as reported by the Auditor for the War 
Department. 

5. Income tax, if to be deducted, would amount to 848.06, and if deducted, would 
leave two hundred and fourteen dollars and ninety-four cents ($214.94). 

By the Court. 
Filed January 7, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed bv the com't. 

Test this 9th day of January, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

T. P. SALTER. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11234. T. P. Salyer v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the comt on the 20th day of February, 1903, by 
resolution of_the House of Representatives under an act of Congi-ess approved March 3, 
1887, known as the Tucker Act: 

"A BILL For the relief of T. P. Salyer, of Lawrence County, Kentucky.. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, 'xhat the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasmy not otherwise appropriated, 
to T. P. Salyer, of Lawi'ence County, Kentucky, the sum of five hundred dollars, 
for quartermaster stores taken by the Federal forces for their vise during the war of the 
rebellion." 

The claimant appeared and filed his petition in this court July 3, 1903, in which 
he makes the following allegations: 

"That he was a resident of Louisa, in Lawrence County, Ky., during the war for 
the suppression of the rebellion, and throughout said war was loyal to the Government 
of the United States; that during said war he was the owner of a large amount of house 
lumber and intended to use the same for building purposes; that during the winter 
of 1861-62 Gen. William B. Nelson came and camped near his property with eight 
regiments of soldiers and took possession and burned a large portion of said lumber, 
which prevented claimant from proceeding with his building operations; that in 
March, 1862, Col. James A. Garfield camped with his regiment several weeks close 
by petitioner's place of residence and took and used up the remainder of the lumber; 
that all of said lumber was taken for use of the Union soldiers, and was reasonably 
worth 1500; no part of said sum of $500 has ever been paid him." 



152 - ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. 

The case was brouglit to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 16th day of October, 
1906. 

R. W. Haynes appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by James A. 
Tanner, his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection 
of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that T. P. Salyer, the claimant, was loyal to the 
Government of the United States during the war for the suppression of the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the 
United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took from the claimant, 
in Lawrence County, Ky., property as above described, which at the time and place 
of taking was reasonably worth the sum of three hundred and fifty dollars ($350), for 
which no payment appears to have been made. 

Laches. — It appears that claimant put his claim in the hands of several attorneys 
for collection, but that said attorneys, not knowing how to proceed, the claim was 
never presented to any officer or Department of the Government prior to its presenta- 
tion to Congress ai^d reference to this court as aforesaid. 

By the Court. 

Filed October 22, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 8th day of December, A. D. 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claiins. 

MARY SPEAK. 

[In the Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10794. Mary Speak, widow of Jesse C. Speak, deceased, 

V. The United States. 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Committee 
on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May. 1902. The 
case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 7th day of January. 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

1. That she is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of Lam'el, in 
the State of Kentucky, and is the widow of Jesse C. Speak, deceased. 

2. That said Jesse C. Speak, being the first sergeant of Company B, Seventh Regi- 
ment of Kentucky Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the 
governor of the State of Kentucky as second lieutenant thereof on December 18. 1864; 
and that from and after December 24, 1864, the said Jesse C. Speak assumed and per- 
formed all the duties of his said grade until January 1, 1865. when he has mustered in 
as such; said regiment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by 
law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, said Jesse C. Speak was refused 
muster and recognition in the grade of second lieutenant during said period. 

3. That during said period the said Jesse C. Speak was allowed and paid only the 
pay and allowances of a fu-st sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance 
of the duties of second lieutenant. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments, and upon other 
evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel, the court makes the following ■ 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

is-1. Mary Speak, the claimant of this case, is a citizen of the United States and resi- 
dent of the county of Laurel, in the State of Kentucky. 

2. On December 24, 1864, Jesse C. Speak was first sergeant of Company B, Seventh 
Regiment of Kentucky Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was mustered 
into the service, to wit, on January 1, 1865, the same was and continued to be below 
the minimum number prescribed by General Order No. 182 of the ^^'ar Department of 
June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 
1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 734). 



ALLOWANCE OP CEKTAIN CLAIMS. 1£3 

The second lieutenant of said Company B, Seventh Keginient Kentucky Volunteer 
Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said gi-ade, the duties of second 
lieutenant devolved upon said Jesse C. Speak, who then and thereafter assumed and 
performed all the duties of second lieutenant of said Company B, Seventh Regiment 
Kentucky Volunteer Infantry, until January 1, 1865, when mustered in. 

The governor of the State of Kentucky also issued to said Jesse C. Speak a com- 
mission as second lieutenant Company B, Seventh Regiment Kentucky Volunteer 
Infantry. 

3. On the said December 24, 1864, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused 
to muster the said Jesse C. Speak as second lieutenant of said Company B, Seventh 
Regiment of Kentucky Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below 
its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of 
second lieutenant until he was mustered into the service as such January 1, 1865. 

4. If the said Jesse C. Speak should be deemed second lieutenant of Company B, 
Seventh Regiment of Kentucky Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay of that 
grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a first sergeant, which he has 
received, and that of a second lieutenant, to which he would have been entitled had 
he been mustered from the period from December 24, 1864, to January 1, 1865, would 
amount to $11.60 without any deduction for income tax, as reported by the Auditor 
for the War Department, to which must be added §25 advance veteran bounty erro- 
neously stopped, making total due $36.60. 

7. Income tax, if to be deducted, would amount to 42 cents, leaving a balance of 
thirty-six dollars and eighteen cents ($36.18). 

By the Court. 
Filed January 7, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 9th day of January, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

ELLA J. VERMILLION. 

(Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10741. Ella J. Vermillion, daughter and heir at law of Zach- 
ariah A. Morgan, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Committee 
on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The 
case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 3d day of December, 1904. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his dii-ection, appeared for the 
defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

1. That she is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of Letcher 
in the State of Kentucky, and is the daughter of Zachariah A. Morgan, deceased. 

2. That said Zachariah A. Morgan, being the first lieutenant of Company B , Seventh 
Regiment of Kentucky Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by 
the governor of the State of Kentucky as captain thereof on October 10, 1865, and that 
from and after July 1, 1865, the said Zachariah A. Morgan assumed and performed all 
the duties of his said grade until December 15, 1865; said regiment was continuously 
below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and forthis reason 
and no other, said Zacliariah A. Morgan was refused muster and recognition in the 
grade of captain during said period. 

3. That during said period the said Zachariah A. Morgan was allowed and paid only 
the pay and allowances of a fii'st lieutenant, although he was in the continuous per- 
formance of the duties of captain. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other 
evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following 

FINDINGS OP PACT. 

1. Ella J. Vermillion is the daughter and heir at law of Zachariah A. Morgan, 
deceased, and is the claimant in this case and a citizen of the United States and 
resident of the county of Letcher in the State of Kentucky. 



154 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

2. On July 1, 1865, Zachariah. A . Morgan was first lieutenant of Company B, Seventh 
Regiment of Kentucky Volunteer Infantry. On tliat date and until he was mus- 
tered out of the service, to wit, on December 15, 1865, the same was and continued 
to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Orders ISIo. 182, of the War 
Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress 
approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., 734). 

The captain of said Company B, Seventh Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry, 
being then and thereafter out of servic:e in said grade, the duties of captain devolved 
upon said Zachariah A. Morgan, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all 
the duties of captain of said Company B, Seventh Regiment Kentucky Volunteer 
Infantry, until December 15, 1865, the date he received his discharge. 

The governor of the State of Kentucky also issued to said Zachariah A. Morgan a 
commission as captain of Company B, Seventh Regiment of Kentucky Volunteer 
Infantry. 

3. On the said July 1, 1865, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to 
muster the said Zachariah A. Morgan as captain of said Company B, Seventh Regi- 
ment of Kentucky Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its 
minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of cap- 
tain until he was mustered out of the service as first lieutenant. 

4. During the period aforesaid, to wit, from July 1, 1865, to December 15, 1865, the 
said Zachariah A. Morgan employed a servant, not enlisted. 

5. Dm'ing said period the said Zachariah A. Morgan did not draw rations from the 
Government. 

6. If the said Zachariah A. Morgan should be deemed captain of Company B, Sev- 
enth Regiment of Kentucky Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay of that 
grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a first lieutenant, which he 
has received, and that of a captain, to which he would have been entitled had he 
been mustered from the period from July 1, 1865, to December 15, 1865, would amount 
to $52.60, without any deduction for difference in income tax as reported by the Audi- 
tor for the War Department. 

7. Income tax, if to be deducted, would amount to $2.65, which would leave forty- 
nine dollars and ninety-five cents ($49. QS"). 

By the Court. 
Filed November 12, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact 'is filed by the court. 

Test this 13th day of November, 1906. 

fsEAi.] , John Randolph, 

Assistant CWh Court of Claivis. 

BENJAMIN R. WALLER. 

[In the Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10821. Benjamin R. Waller v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- 
mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. 
The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 7th day of January, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant and the Attorney-General, 
by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and \mder his direction, appeared for the 
defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Graves, in 
the State of Kentucky. 

2. That he, being the first sergeant of Company G, Twentieth Regiment of Kentucky 
Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State 
of Kentucky as second lieutenant thereof on August 23, 1863; and that from and after 
said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until June, 1864, 
when he was mustered as first lieutenant ; said regiment was continuously below the 
minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason and no other he 
was refused muster and recognition in the grade of second lieutenant during said period. 

3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances 
of a first sergeant although he was in the continuous jierformance of tlie duties of 
second lieutenant. 

Upon the I'eports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other 
evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 155 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. Benjamin R. Waller, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States 
anct resident in the county of Graves, in the State of Kentucky. 

2. On August 23, 1863, the said Benjamin R. Waller was first lieutenant of Company 
G, Twentieth Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he 
was mustered into the service — to wit, on June 28, 1865 — the same was and continued 
to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Orders, No. 182, of the War 
Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress 
approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L.. p. 734). 

The second lieutenant of said Company C^ Twentieth Regiment Kentucky Volun- 
teer Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of 
second lieutenant devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and 
performed all the duties of second lieutenant of said Company G, Twentieth Regiment 
Kentucky Volunteer Infantry, until June 28, 1864, when he was mustered into the 
service. 

The governor of the State of Kentucky also issued to this claimant a commission as 
second lieutenant. Company G, Twentieth Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry. 

3. On the said August 23, 1863, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to 
muster this claimant as second lieutenant of said Company G, Twentieth Regiment 
Kentucky Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its minimum 
strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of second lieuten- 
ant until he was mustered into the service as aforesaid. 

4. During the period aforesaid, to wit, from August 23, 1863, to June 28, 1864, this 
claimant employed no servant. 

5. During said period this claimant did not draw rations frora the Government. 

6. If the said Benjamin R. Waller should be deemed second lieutenant of Company 
G, Twentieth Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay of that 
grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a firat sergeant, which he has 
received, and that of a second lieutenant, to which he would have been entitled had 
he been mustered for the period from August 23, 1863, to June 28, 1864, would amount 
to $524.77, with no deduction on account of income tax, as reported by the Auditor for 
the War Department. 

7. Income tax, if to be deducted, would amount to $9.64, leaving a balance of five 
hundred and fifteen dollars and thirteen cents ($515.13). 

By the Court. 
Filed January 7, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 9th day of January, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

JOHN E. WELLS. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10827. Jotm E. Wells v. The United States.] 
statement of case. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- 
mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th dav of May, 1902. 
The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 7th day of January, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, . 
by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Mason, in 
the State of Kentucky. 

2. That he, being the captain of Company G, Sixteenth Regiment of Kentucky 
Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the 
State of Kentucky as lieutenant-colonel thereof on May 15, 1865; and that from and 
after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until Augu ft 
5, 1865, when he was mustered out as captain; said regiment was continuously below 
the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no 
other, he was refused muster and recognition in the grade of lieutenant-colonel duri n g 
said period, -rj 



156 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances of 
a captain, although he Avas in the continuous performance of the duties of lieutenant- 
colonel. 

Upon the reports fiunished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other 
evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. John E. Wells, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and 
resident in the county of Mason, in the State of Kentucky. 

2. On May 16, 1865, the said John E. Wells was captain of Company G, Sixteenth 
Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was mustered 
out of the service, to wit, on August 5, 1865, the same was and continued to be below 
the minimum number prescribed by General Orders, No. 182, of the War Department 
of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 
3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., 734). 

The lieutenant-colonel of said Sixteenth Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry 
being then and thereafter out of ser^dce in said grade, the diities of lieutenant-colonel 
devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all the 
duties of lieutenant-colonel of said Sixteenth Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry 
until he was mustered out as captain, August 5, 1865. 

The governor of the State of Kentucky also issued^ to this claimant a commission 
as lieutenant-colonel, Sixteenth Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry. 

3. On the said May 16, 1865, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to 
muster this claimant ,as lieutenant-colonel of said Sixteenth Regiment Kentucky 
Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its minimum strength, 
as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of lieutenant-colonel until 
he was mustered out of the service as captain, August 5, 1865. 

4. Dm-ing the period aforesaid, to wit, from May 16, 1865, to August 5, 1865, this 
claimant employed two servants, not enlisted. 

5. If the said John E. Wells should be deemed lieutenant-colonel of Sixteenth 
Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry and entitled to the pay of that grade, the 
difference between his pay and allowances as a captain, which he has received, and 
that of a lieutenant-colonel, to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered 
for the period from May 16, 1865, to August 5, 1865, would amount to $256.24, without 
any deduction for income tax, 'as reported by the Auditor for the War Department. 

6. Income tax would amount to Il2.05, and if deducted would leave two hundred 
and forty-four dollars and nineteen cents ($244.19). 

By the Court. 
Filed January 7, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 9th day of January, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

WILLIAM J. WORTHINGTON.' 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10S3S. William J. Wortliington v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. ■ : \] 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Committee 
on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The 
case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 7th day of January, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of Greenup, 
in the State of Kentucky. 

2. That said William J. A\'orthington, being the major of the Twenty-second Regi- 
ment of Kentucky Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the 
governor of the State of Kentucky as lieutenant-colonel thereof on October 15, 1863, 
and that from and after said date the said William J. ^^'orthington assumed and per- 
formed all the duties of his said grade until December 12, 1863, when he was mustered 
ill as lieutenant-colonel; said regiment was continuously below the minimum number 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 157 

prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason and no other he was refused mus- 
ter and recognition in the grade of lieutenant-colonel during said period. 

3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances of 
a major, although he was in the continuous performancife of the duties of lieutenant- 
colonel. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other 
evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. William J. W^orthington, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States 
and resident of the county of Greenup, in the State of Kentucky. 

2. On October 15, 1863, William J. Worthington was major of the Twenty-second 
Regiment of Kentucky Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was mustered 
into the service, to wit, on December 12, 1863, the same was and continued to be below 
the minimum number prescribed by General Orders, No. 182, of the War Department, 
of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 
3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., 734). 

The lieutenant-colonel of said Twenty-second Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infan- 
try, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of lieutenant- 
colonel devolved upon said William J. Worthington, who then and thereafter assumed 
and performed all the duties of lieutenant-colonel of said Twenty-second Regiment 
Kentuckv Volunteer Infantry until he was mustered into the service as such on Decem- 
ber 12, 1863. 

The governor of the State of Kentucky also issued to said William J. Worthington a 
commission as lieutenant-colonel Twenty-second Regiment of Kentucky Volunteer 
Infantry. 

3. On the said October 15, 1863, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to 
muster the said William J. Worthington as iieutenant-colonel of said Twenty-second 
Regiment of Kentucky Volunteer Infantry solely because his command was below its 
minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of 
lieutenant-colonel uLitil he was mustered into the service as such December 12, 1863. 

4. If the said William J. Worthington should be deemed lieutenant-colonel of the 
Twenty-second Regiment of Kentucky Volunteer Infantry and entitled to the pay of that 
grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a major, which he has received, 
and that of lieutenant-colonel, to which he would have been entitled had he been 
mustered from the period from October 15, 1863, to December 11, 1863, would amount 
to 136.40, without any deduction being made for income tax, as reported by the Auditor 
for the War Department. 

5. Income tax would amount to $1.09, and if to be deducted would leave thirty-five 
dollars and thirty-one cents ($35.31). 

By the Court. 
Filed January 7, 1907. 

A true copy of- the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 9th day of January, 1907 

[seal.] ' John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Coiirt of Claims. 

LOUISIANA. 

HEIRS OF MATTHEW J. JONES. 

[In the Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 10456. Annie E. Jones, Robert McElroy Jones, Alice 
J. Jones, Mattie E. Blanehard, Clemence W. Brian, Cecilia McElroy Dunn, and Robert M. Jones, 
administrator of the estate of Emma H. Wells, deceased,, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken 
by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late 
war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Committee 
on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 28th day of January, 1902. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 20th day of April, 1903, found that the 
persons alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were 
alleged to have.been taken, were loyal to the Government of the United. States through- 
out said war. 



158 ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN" CLAIMS. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 22d day of December, A. D. 
1904. 

Cyrus Snyder, esq., appeared for claimants (Meyers and Consaul, of counsel), and 
the Attorney-General, by E. C. Brandenburg, esq., his assistant and under his direc- 
tion, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimants in their petition make the following allegations, to wit: 

That petitioners Annie E. Jones, Robert McElroy Jones, Alice J. Jones, Mattie E, 
Blanchard (nee Jones). Clemence W. Brian (nee Jones), Cecilia McElroy Dunn (n^e 
Jones), and the decedent Emma H. Wells (nee Jones) were during the late war for the 
suppression of the rebellion citizens of the United States, residing in the parish of 
Rapides, State of Louisiana, all being heirs of Matthew J. Jones, deceased; that peti- 
tioner Robert M. Jones is the administrator of the estate of said Emma H. Wells (nee 
Jone-K now deceased; that during said war there were taken from petitioners and 
said decedent Emma H. Wells (nee Jones), by the United States military forces acting 
under proper authority, and converted to the use of the United States Army quarter- 
master stores and commissary supplies of the kinds and values below stated, to wit: 



500 bushels of corn at $1 per bushel 

9 mules, at $150 each 1, 350 

6 horses, at |150 each 900 

24 oxen, at $40 each 960 

36 cattle, at $15 each 540 

4,000 pounds of pork, at 15 cents per pound 600 

Beef from 3 cattle : 90 

60 hogs, at $5 each 300 

40 sheep, at S3 each 120 

3 wagons, at $50 each 150 

1 cart 25 

1 buggy, used as an ambulance 100 

3 barrels of molasses, 120 gallons 120 

1 barrel of sugar 25 

% barrels of lard 60 

1,500 bundles of fodder - 20 

Total - 5,860 

The court upon the e\'idence, and after considering the briefs and argument of coun- 
sel on each side, makes the following 

FINDING OF FACT. 

There was taken from the claimants (then infants of tender years)_in Rapides Parish, 
State of Louisiana, during the war for the suppression of the rebellion by the military 
authorities of the United States, for the use of the army, property as above described, 
which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of four thousand 
one hundred and forty-three dollars ($4,143), 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

By the Court. 

Filed January 3, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 4th day of January, 1905. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

FANNIE M. WELLS AND OTHERS. 
[Court of Claims. Congressional. No. 324. Fannie M. Wells et al. v. The United States.] 

This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fm-- 
uished to the military forces of the United States for then- use during the late war for the 
suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquii-y, finds that Lam'a P. 
Maddox, deceased, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or 
from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of 
the United States throughout said war. 

Bv THE Court. 

Filed January 23. 1899. i. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS, 159 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 324. Fannie M. AVells, Ida F. Wells, and John Maddox, tutor 
of the minor children of Laura P. Maddox, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in tlie above-entitled case, for supplies or stores alleged to liave been taken 
by or fiu-nished to the military forces of the United States for their use dming the late 
war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the comt by the Committee 
on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 18th day of February, 1885. 

On a preliminary inquiry the com-t, on the 23d day of January, 1899, found that the 
person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or fi'om whom they were alleged 
to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said 
war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 18th day of December, 191)6. 

Paul E. Sleman, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Franklin 
W. Collins, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimants in tjheir petition make the following allegations: 

1. That they are citizens of the United States residing in the parish of Rapides, 
State of Louisiana, and are the children of Laura P. Maddox, deceased. 

2. That the following stores and supplies were taken from Fannie M. Wells, Ida F, 
Wells, and Laura P. Maddox in the years 1863 and 1864 for the use of the United States 
Army: 

1863. 

44 mules, at $250 each $11, 000 

9 horses 2, 250 

100 hogsheads sugar, 1,200 pounds each, at 18| cents 22, 500 

250 barrels molasses, at $22.50 per barrel 5, 625 

1,000 bushels of corn, at $1.25 1, 250 

75 beeves, at $30 2, 250 

100 hogs, at $15 1, 500 

1864. 

600 hogsheads sugar, 1,200 pounds each, at 18f cents 135, 000 

800 barrels molasses, at $22.50 18, 000 

8,000 bushels corn, at $1.25 10, 000 

126 beeves 3, 780 

360 sheep 1, 080 

250 hogs 3, 750 

6,000 pounds bacon and 1 , 600 pounds lard , at 20 cents 1, 520 

4 cane wagons, at $225, and 2 carts, at $120 1, 140 

60,000 pounds corn fodder 600 

4,000 pounds flour 160 

Total 221, 405 

3. That claims (Nos. 18538 and 18522) were presented to the late Southern Claims 
Commission and were rejected by said commission. No other action was had on the 
said claims until the second session of the Forty-eighth Congress, when the Committee 
on War Claims of the House of Representatives referred them to the Court of Claims. 

4. That the said claims have not been assigned nor transferred, and that they are the 
sole owners thereof; that the said claims are just and correct; that said Laura P. 
Maddox nor her heirs gave any aid or comfort to the late rebellion, but that they were 
throughout the wai' loyal to the Government of tlie United States. 

The petitioners pray that the facts may be ascertained by the court as to their loyalty 
and the justice of their claims, and that the same may be reported to the said Commit- 
tee on War Claims, as provided in the act of March 3, 1883. 

Of the amount claimed, namely, $221,405, the heirs of Laura P. Maddox claim a one- 
third part, namely, $73,801.67, representing the one- third interest of their mother, 
Laura P. Maddox, in the property taken. 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

■ FINDINGS OF FACT. 

During the war for the suppression of the rebellion there were taken by the military 
forces of the United States for their use, in the parish of Rapides, La., from the planta- 
tion of the claimants' decedent, supplies of the kind and character described in the 



160 ALLOWAISrCE OF CERTAIX CLAIMS. • 

petition, reasonably worth, at the time and place of taking, the sum of forty-five thou- 
sand dollars ($45,000), two-thirds of which belonged to Fannie M. Wells and Ida F. 
Wells, found not to have been loyal on January' 23, 1899, and the remaining third, or 
fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000), belonged to Laura P. Maddox, deceased, who, by 
reason of her tender years, was found to have been loyal during the late civil war. 

No part of the above amount appears to have been paid. 

By the Court. 

Filed January 14, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 17th day of Januaiy, 1907. - -f 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cla-k Court of Claims. 

MICHAEL RUBI. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 4107. Michael Rubi v. The United States 
STATEMENT OF CASE. 

A claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken 
by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their use during the 
late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Com- 
mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 6th day of March, 1888. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 10th day of December, 1906, found the 
person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were 
alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States tlu-ough- 
out the said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 3d day of December, 1906, 
Edward S. Duvall, esq., appearing for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appearing for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimaiit in his petition makes the following allegations: 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States, at present residing in the Repul)lic of 
Mexico, and that at the time the stores and supplies hereinafter mentioned were 
taken, he had declared his intention to become a citizen of the LTnited States, and 
was throughout the war of the rebellion loyal' to the United States: that during the 
years 1861, 1862, 1863, he was the owner of a church situated near Donaldsonville. 
La.; that said church was built in 1861, was about 100 feet long. 45 feet wide, and 25 
feet high, and containing 80 pews, each seating four or five persons: that over the door 
of said church was a gallery for the organ and choir; that said church also contained a 
sanctuary about 20 or 25 feet long, and that said church was built by the petitioner 
for his own use. 

2. That on or about the 15th day of June, 1863, said church was pulled down by 
the United States acting through Captains Pearson and Felton, othcei-s of Companies 
H and K, respectively, of the First Regiment of Kentucky Volunteei-s, and the mate- 
rial thereof was used for constructing Fort Butler, near Donaldsonville: that the 
petitioner owned at the time, in addition to said church, a large number of bricks 
and nails and other material which he had collected for the purpose of building a 
residence near said church, and also one horse: and that on or about the said 15th 
day of June, 1863, the United States, through its duly authorized ofhcei-s, took pos- 
session of said materials and supplies and said horse: and that no payment has ever 
been made to the claimant, in whole or in part, for the materials composing said 
church and for the other materials antl supplies taken by the United States, as afore- 
said; that the stores and supplies taken by the LTnited States for the use of tlie Union 
Army, as aforesaid, were as follows : 

13,000 l)ricks, at .$15 $195 

50,000 feet of scantling, at $50 2, 500 

10 barrels lime, at $5 50 

6,000 feet flooring, at $70 420 

20,000 feet of weatherl)oards, at $50 1, 000 

8,000 feet of laths for rooting, at $20 160 

7,000 feet of boards, at $50.". ». . . 350 

40,000 shingles, at $12 480 

80 pews, at $1 2 960 

12 windows with blinds, at $15 180 

2 doors, at $30 60 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 161 

12 barrels nails, at $7 |84 

Hardware (hinges and locks) 100 

10,000 feet of lumber, at $50 500 

1 horse 200 

Amounting in all to 7, 239. 

The court upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, make the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the claimant's decedent was loyal to the 
United States Government throughout the war of the rebellion. 

II. That the claimant, Michael Rubi, a priest of the Roman Catholic Church, was 
on and prior to the 16th day of June, 1863, the owner of a church, building mate- 
rials, and horse, above described; that said church situated near Donaldsonville, La., 
was torn down by the military forces of the United States on or about the 15th day 
of June, 1863, for the use of the Army in building a fort and providing winter quar- 
ters for United States troops; that said church, building material, and horse, were 
reasonably worth the sum of one thousand, nine hundred and eighty dollars ($1,980), 
for which no payment appears to have been made. 

III. The claim was duly presented to the Southern Claims Commission under the 
act of March 3, 1871, but no decision on the merits was rendered by said Commis- 
sion. It does not appear that the said claim has since been presented to any Depart- 
ment or officer of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference 
to this court as aforesaid. 

By the Court. 
Filed December 10, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 12th day of December, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

MAINE. 
JACOB B. LORING. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-100. Jacob B. Loring v. The United States.] 
STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Committee 
on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 27th day of March, 1906. The 
case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 1st day of April, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker and Jones appeared for the claimant, and th^ Attorney-General, 
by George M. Anderson, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Knox, in 
the State of Maine. 

2. That he, being the first sergeant of Company B, First Regiment of Maine Volun- 
teer Cavalry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State of 
Maine as captain thereof on July 11, 1864; and that from and after said date he assumed 
and performed all the duties of his said grade until September 5, 1864, when he was 
mustered in as such. Said regiment was continuously below the minimum number 
prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, he was refused 
muster and recognition in the grade of captain during said period. 

3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances of 
a first sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of captain. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments, and upon_ other 
evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel, the court makes the following 

H. Rep. 543, 60-1 11 



162 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAUsT CLAIMS. 

'' FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. Jacob B. Loring, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and 
resident in the county of Knox, in the State of Maine. 

2. On July 11, 1864, the said Jacob B. Loring was first sergeant of Company B, First 
Regiment Maine Volunteer Cavalry. On that date and until he was mustered into 
the service, to wit, on September 5, 1864, the same was and continued to be below the 
minimum number prescribed by General Order No. 182 of the War Department of June 
20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 
(12 Stat. L., p. 734). 

The captain of said Company B, First Regiment Maine Volunteer Cavalry, being 
then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of captain devolved upon 
this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all the duties of captain 
of said Company B, First Regiment Maine Volunteer Cavalry. 

The governor of the State of Maine also issued to this claimant a commission as cap- 
tain Company B, First Regiment Maine Volunteer Cavalry. 

3. On the said July 11, 1864, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to 
muster this claimant as captain of said Company B, First Regiment Maine Volunteer 
Cavalry, solely because his command was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, 
although he continued to perform the duties of captain until he was mustered into the 
service as such, September 5, 1864. 

4. If the said Jacob B. Loring should be deemed captain of Company B, First Regi- 
ment Maine Volunteer Cavalry, and entitled to the pay of that grade," the difference 
between his pay and allowances as a first sergeant, which he has received, and that of 
a captain, without servant, to which he would have been entitled had be been mus- 
tered for the period from July 11, 1864, to September 4, 1864, would amount to 1148.23 
(one hundred and forty-eight dollars and twenty- three cents), as reported by the Audi- 
tor for the War Department. 

By the Court. 
Filed April 1, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed, by the court. 
Test this 2d day of April, 1907. 
I [seal.] _ John Randolph, _ 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

WHITMAN L. ORCUTT. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10760. Whitman L. Orcutt v. The United States.] 
STATEMENT OF CASE. 

• The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- 
mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. 
The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 21st day of January, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations; 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Aroostook, 
in the State of Maine. 

2. That he, being the first sergeant of Company C, Fifteenth Regiment of Maine 
Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the 
State of Maine as second lieutenant thereof on January 25, 1864; and that from and 
after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until Feb- 
ruary 21, 1865, when he was mustered in as first lieutenant; said regiment was con- 
tinuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for 
this reason and no other he was refused muster and recognition in the grade of second 
lieutenant during said period. 

3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances 
of a first sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of 
second lieutenant. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other 
evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following 



ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 163 

• FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. Whitman L. Orcutt, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States 
and resident in the county of Aroostook, in the State of Maine. 

2. On January 25, 1864, the said Whitman L. Orcutt was first sergeant of Company 
C, Fifteenth Regiment Maine Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was 
mustered into the service as first lieutenant, to wit, on February 21, 1865, the same 
was and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Orders, 
No. 182, of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of 
the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., 734). 

The second lieutenant of said Company C, Fifteenth Regiment Maine Vohinteer 
Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of second 
lieutenant devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and per- 
formed all the duties of second lieutenant of said Company C, Fifteenth Regiment 
Maine Volunteer Infantry, until promoted and commissioned first lieutenant, to wit, 
February 21, 1865. 

The governor of the State of Maine also issued to this claimant a commission as 
second lieutenant. Company C, Fifteenth Regiment Maine Volunteer Infantry. 

3. On the said January 25, 1864, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused 
to muster this claimant as second lieutenant of said Company C, Fifteenth Regiment 
Maine Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its minimum 
strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of second lieu- 
tenant until he was mustered into the service as first lieutenant as aforesaid. 

4. During the period aforesaid, to wit, from January 25, 1864, to February 21, 1865, 
this claimant employed a servant, not an enlisted man, but whether for his own 
exclusive use, or what amount, if anything, was paid to said servant does not appear. 

5. During said period this claimant did not draw rations from the Government. 

6. If the said Whitman L. Orcutt should be deemed second lieutenant of Com- 
pany C, Fifteenth Regiment Maine Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay of 
that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a first sergeant which 
he has received, and that of a second lieutenant to which he would have been enti- 
tled had he been mustered for the period from January 25, 1864, to February 21, 1865, 
would amoimt to 1878.47 without any deduction being made for income tax, as 
reported by the Auditor for the War Department, including $14.02 income tax 
deducted on remuster settlement of August 10, 1886. 

7. Income tax, if to be deducted, would amount to $29.32, leaving a balance of 
eight hund^red and forty-nine dollars and fifteen cents (1849.15). 

By the Court. 
Filed January 21, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 24th day of January, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

WILLIAM L. ROSS. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169—149. William L. Ross v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Committee 
on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The 
case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 3d day of December, 1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Penobscot, 
in the State of Maine. 

2. That he, being the first lieutenant of Company G, Sixty-fourth Regiment of New 
York Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the 

.State of New York as captain thereof on May 18, 1865, and that from and after said date 
he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until July 24, 1865, when he 
was mustered out as first lieutenant; said regiment was continuously below the mini- 
mum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, 
he was refused muster and recognition in the grade of captain during said period. 



164 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

3. That during said period lie was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances 
of a first lieutenant, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of 
captain. 

■ Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other 
evidenc3 and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following 

BINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. William L. Ross, the claimant m this case, is a citizen of the United States and 
resident in the county of Penobscot, in the State of Maine. 

2. On May 18, 1865, the said William L. Rose was first lieutenant of Company G, 
Sixty-fourth Regiment New York Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he 
was mustered out of the service, to wit, on July 24, 1865, the same was and continued 
to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Order No. 182 of the War 
Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress 
approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat, L., p. 734). 

The captain of said Company G, Sixty-fourth Regiment New York Volunteer 
Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of captain 
devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all 
the duties of captain of said Company G, Sixty-fourth Regiment New York Volunteer 
Infantry, until mustered out as first lieutenant July 24, 1865. 

The governor of the State of New York also issued to this claimant a commission as 
captain Company G, Sixty-fourth Regiment New York Volunteer Infantry. 

3. On the said May 18, 1865, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to 
muster this claimant as captain of said Company G, Sixty-fourth Regiment New York 
Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its minimum strength, as 
aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of captain until he was mustered 
out of the service as fu'st lieutenant July 24, 1865. 

4. During the period aforesaid, to wit, from May 18, 1865, to July 24, 1865, this claim- 
ant employed no servant not enlisted. 

5. During said period this claimant did draw rations from the Government. 

6. If the said William L. Ross should be deemed captain of Company G, Sixty-fourth 
' Regiment New York Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay of that grade, the 

difference between his paj^ and allowances as a first lieutenant which he has received 
and that of a captain to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered for 
the period from May 18, 1865, to July 24, 1865, would amount to $47.56 without any 
deduction being made for income tax, as reported by the Auditor for the War 
Department. 

7. Income tax would amount to |2.72 and if same is deducted the balance is forty- 
four dollars and eighty-four cents ($44.84). 

By the Court. 
Filed December 3, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 6th day of December, 1906. 

[sEAii.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

MARYLAND. 

JACOB R. ADAMS. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 282. Jacob R. Adams «. The United States.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or 
furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use dm-ing the late war 
for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that 
Jacob R. Adams, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or 
from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government 
of the United States throughout said war. 

By the CouTiT. 

Filed November 16, 1885. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 282. Jacob R. Adams v. The United States.] 

statement op case. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores, alleged to have been 

taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during 

the late war lor the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the 

, Committee on War Claims, House of Representatives, on the 30th day of January, 1885. 



ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 165 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 16th day of November, 1885, found that 
the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were 
alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- 
out said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 19th day of December, 1904. 

George A. and William B. King, esqs., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared 
tor the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

1. That he is a citizen of the State of Maryland, and gave no aid or comfort to the 
late rebellion, but was throughout the civil war loyal to the Government of the United 
States. 

2. That the following property was taken by the military authorities of the United 
States in July, 1863, from him in Washington County, State of Maryland, and used 
by the United States Army, to wit: 

168 bushels of wheat, at |1.50 $252. 00 

50 bushels of corn, at $1 50. 00 

5 tons of hay, at |10 50. 00 

17 cords of wood, at $3 51. 00 



Total 403. 00 

. The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OP FACT. 

. I. There was taken from the claimant, in Washington County, State of Maryland, 
during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces of the 
United States for the use of the Army, property of the kind and character above 
described, which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of two hundred and 
ten dollars (|210). No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

By the Court. 
Filed December 22, 1904. 

A true copy. ' 

Test this 29th day of December, 1904. ■ 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

WILLIAM E. BOTELER, ADMINISTRATOR. 

[Court of Claiins. Congressional, No. 10021. Estate of Hezekiah Boteler, deceased, v. The United 

States.] 

This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- 
nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for 
the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Heze- 
kiah Boteler, deceased, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, 
or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government 
of the United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed May 28, 1900. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10021. William E. Boteler, administrator of Hezekiah Boteler, 
deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENJ' OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 13th day of February, 
1900. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 28th day of May, 1900, found that the 
person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged 
to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout 
said war. 



166 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 11th day of March, 1903. 

G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by James 
A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

That he is a citizen of the United States residing in Frederick County, State of Mary- 
land, where his decedent resided during the late war of the rebellion; that at different 
times during said period the United States forces, by proper authority, took from his 
decedent quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the value of |1,805, and 
appropriated the same to the use of the Army; said property being of the kind and 
value as follows: 

Item 1. 1,020 bushels of wheat, at |1.50 $1, 530 

Item 2. 35 tons of straw, at $7 245 

Item 3. 600 fence rails, at $5 30 

Total 1, 805 

Taken in July, 1864, by Major-General Wallace's command. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OP PACT. 

There were taken from the claimant's decedent in Frederick County, State of Mary- 
land, by the military forces of the United States, during the war of the rebellion, for 
the use of the Army, stores and supplies of those above described, which at the time 
and place of taking were reasonably worth the sum of five hundred and sixty-eight 
dollars ($568). 

No allowance appears to have been made for any part thereof. 

By the Court. 

Filed March 16, 1903. 

A true copy. 

Test this 10th day of November, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

JEREMIAH KANODE. 
[Court of Claims. Congressional. No. 10023. Jereini&,h Kanode v. The United States.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- 
nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for 
the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Jere- 
miah Kanode, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from 
whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the 
United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

November 19, 1906. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 10023. Jeremiah Kanode v. The United States.] 
statement op case. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 13th day of Febru- 
ary, 1900. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 19th day of November, 1906, found that 
the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were 
alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- 
out said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 14th day of January, 1907. 
G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General by John Q. 
Thompson, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIl^ CLAIMS. 167 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

That he is a citizen of the United States, residing in Frederick County, Md., where 
he resided during the late civil war. 

That at different times during said period there was taken fi-om him in said county 
and State, by the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, and 
appropriated to the use of the Army, certain quartermaster stores and commissary 
supplies, as follows: 

Item 1. 200 bushels of oats, at 50 cents $100 

Item 2. 25 bushels of wheat .• 50 

Item 3. 4 barrels of corn, at $5 20 

Item 4. 9 acres of corn, 72 barrels, at |3 216 

Total 386 

(Taken in September, 1862, by General McClellan's command.) ■ ' 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel for both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United 
States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took from the claimant property 
as above described, which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of one hun- 
dred and thirty-six dollars ($136.00), no part of which appears to have been paid. 

By the Court. 

Filed January 21, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 7th day of November, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

MARY J. LANGLEY-NORRIS, ADMINISTRATRIX OF IGNATIUS J. 

LANGLEY. 

[Court of Claims. Ignatius J. Langley v. The United States. Congressional, No. 9398.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- 
nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war 
for the suppression of the rebellion, the com-t, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that 
Ignatius J. Langley, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or 
from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of 
the United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed May 13, 1901. 

Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 9398. Mary J. Langley-Norris, administratrix of estate of 
Ignatius J. Langley, deceased, v. The United States.] 

statement of case. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United -States for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims, House of Representatives, on the 8th day of May, 1896. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 13th day of May, 1901, found that the 
person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged 
to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout 
said war. 

The case wais brought to a hearing on its merits on the 24th day of January, 1907. 

William D. Henry, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
Charles F. Kincheloe, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes the following allegations: 

That her decedent was a citizen of the United States, residing in St. Mary County, 
Md., during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion; that at different times 
during said period the United States military forces, by proper authority, took from 



168 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

Mm pasturage for 320 mules and horses for two weeks, at |3.50 per week each, on a 
farm called "Riverton," on Point Lookout, Md., amounting to the sum of |2,240. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

, FINDING OF FACT. 

During the war for the suppression of the rebellion, the military forces of the United 
States, by proper authority, pastvired on the farm of the claimant's decedent on Point 
Lookout, Md., horses and mules as set forth in the petition. Such pasturage was then 
and there reasonably worth the sum of ten hundred and fifty dollars (|1,050). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

By the Court. 

Filed February 18, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 17th day of December, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

RALEIGH SHERMAN, ADMINISTRATOR. 

[Cotirt of Claims. Congressional, No. 434. Williani P. Leaman v. the United States.] 

This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- 
nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the 
suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that William P. 
Leaman, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the 
same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States 
throughout said war . 

By THE Court. 

Filed October 24, 1904. 

Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 434. Raleigh Sherman, administrator of William P. Leaman 

deceased, v. The United States. 

statement of case. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies, or stores, alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the 
late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Com- 
mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 8th day of February, 1886. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 24th day of October, 1904, found that the 
person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged 
to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said 
war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 24th day of December, 1906. 

P. E. Dye, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Felix Bran- 
nigan, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and pro- 
tection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

That during the war fof the suppression of the rebellion William P. Leaman, de- 
ceased, was loyal to the Government of the LTnited States; that he occupied a farm of 
350 acres in Montgomery County, Md. ; that the United States troops occupied his land; 
that he subsisted soldiers in September and October, 1862, and that they took and used 
the following property: 

To 1 stack timothy hay, 2 tons, at $40 180. 00 

To 25 bushels wheat in stack, taken and fed for forage, at $2.85 71. 25 

To 10 bushels oats, taken from stack and fed for forage, at 90 cents 9. 00 

To 50 bushels corn, taken from field, first in roasting ears and lastly for forage, 

at $1 50. 00 

To rent of house for use of officers and sick soldiers from September 16 to 

November 30, 1862, at $40 100. 00 

To rent of 80 acres used for drill and camp ground by army under command 

of General Banks, for September, October, and November, 1862 500. 00 

To 25 bushels corn taken from crib, at $1 25. 00 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 169 

To pasturage of 40 acres of clover and timothy, August aad September, 1862, 

at 15 1200. 00 

To pasturage, 40 acres of clover and timothy, 1863, at $5 200. 00 

To 1 ton timothy, at |40 , 40. 00 

To 2 barrels cider, at |15 30. 00 

To 60 pounds butter, at 50 cents 30. 00 

To 20 bushels potatoes taken from the house, at |1.80 36. 00 

To 180 bushels potatoes taken from field, same year, 1862, at |1.80 324. 00 

To 100 bushels potatoes taken from field, 1863 180. 00 

To 3 dozen chickens, at |6 18. 00 

To subsisting soldiers in September and October, 1862, at 25 cents per meal, ' 

756 meals 189. 00 

Total 2, 082. 25 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the 
United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took from claimant's 
decedent, in Montgomery County, Md., property as above described, which at the 
time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of five hundred and ninety 
dollars (|590). No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

By the Court. 

Filed January 7, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 19th day of January, A. D. 1907. 

[seal.] John Kandolph. 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

ZACHARIAH D. RIDOUT, EXECUTOR. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No 842. Zachariah D. Ridout, surviving executor of Hester Ann 
Ridout, deceased, v. The United States.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or 
furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war 
for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that 
Frances Chase, Matilda Chase, and Hester Ann Ridout, the persons alleged to ha-^e 
furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been 
taken, were loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 
Filed April 10, 1905. 

Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 842. Zachariah D. Ridout, surviving executor of Hester 
Ann Ridout, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military fotces of the United States for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims, House of Representatives, on the 13th day of May, 1886. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court on the 9th day of February, 1904, found that 
the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were 
alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Governmtent of the United States through- 
out said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 6th day of April, 1905. P. E. 
Dye, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Felix Brannigan, esq., 
his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the 
interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations : 

That he is the surviving executor of Hester Ann Ridout, deceased, late of Anne 
Arundel County, Md.; that he has a claim against the United States for stores and 
supplies taken from Hester Ann Chase, deceased, by the military forces of the United 



170 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

States for their use duiing the war for the suppression of the rebellion; that said claim 
was originally filed by her before the Quartermaster-General under the act of Jidy 4, 
1864; that she made and executed a will in favor of her niece, Matilda Chase, who 
continued to prosecute said claim as executrix of her said aunt, who died March 6, 
1875. The Quartermaster-General rejected and disallowed said claim, and after the 
death of said Matilda Chase, administratrix, Hester Ann Ridout applied for letters 
de bonis non and filed her petition before Congress, and the Committee on War Claims, 
House of Representatives, on May 13, 1886, transmitted said claim to the Court of 
Claims for investigation and determination of facts, imder the act of March 3, 1883, 
commonly known as the "Bowman Act," when it became Congressional No. 842. 

The tract of land from which the timber was cut, which is the subject-matter of this 
claim, consisted of 235 acres, and was owned and bequeathed by Jeremiah Townley 
Chase, of Anne Arundel County, Md., to Hester Ann Chase in his will admitted to 
probate May 20, 1828, in the following words: 

"By this, my codicil to my last will and testament, I will and devise to my daughter, 
Hester Ann, all that parcel of land, part of the plains, lying in Anne Arundel County, 
which said parcel contains 235 acres, was conveyed to me in fee simple by Richard T. 
Cobb and Catharine, his wife, to have and to hold the said land, to the said Hester Ann 
diu-ing her life without impeachment of waste. After the death of the said Hester 
Ann, I give and devise the same parcel of land to my grandchildren, Hester Ann, 
Matilda, and Frances, daughters of my dear daughter, Matilda Chase, to them and their 
heirs, equally to be divided, and to the survivors of them." 

The said Hester Ann Chase was in possession o'f said tract of land from May 20, 1828, 
to March 6, 1875, the time of her death. That on the death of Hester Ann Chase, the 
granddaughters of Jeremiah Townley Chase became the owners of said tract of land, 
viz, Frances, sometimes known as Fanny C. T. Chase, who died January 27, 1880; 
Matilda, who died January 22, 1885, and Hester Ann Ridout, nee Chase, who died 
December 13, 1888, leaving her will, which was probated, appointing Zachariah D. 
Ridout one of her executors, the other having since died. 

The said Hester Aam Ridout inherited from her sisters their respective interests in 
the claim. The total claim for cut wood and standing timber is $11,325, as set forth in 
the second amended petition and requests for findings of fact. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF PACT. 

The court finds that Hester Ann Chase, the life tenant in said real estate, and also 
Hester Ann Ridout, Frances Chase, Matilda Chase, her nieces, upon whom the fee 
simple of said real estate devolved upon the death of said Hester Ann Chase, were all 
loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war for the suppression 
of the rebellion. 

II. There was taken fi-om the above-named claimants, by the military forces of the 
United States, under proper authority, in the county of Anne Arundel, State of 
Maryland, during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, property of the kind and 
character above described, which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of 
three thousand eight hundred dollars ($3,800). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

By the Court. 

Filed AprU 10, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 22d day of May, 1905, 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

JOHN L. SNYDER, EXECUTOR OF GEORGE SNYDER. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, JSTo. 274. George Snyder v. The United States.] 

This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- 
nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war 
for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminaiy inquiiy, finds that 
George Snyder, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from 
whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the 
United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed Januarv 10, 1887. 



ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 171 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 274. John L. Snyder, executor of George Snyder, deceased 

V. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled (?ase for supplies or stores, alleged to have been taken 
by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use dtiring the late 
war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Committee 
on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 30th day of January, 1885. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 10th day of January, 1887, found that the 
person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged 
to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said 
war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 23d day of October, 1907. 
G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by C. F. 
Kincheloe, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant, in his petition, makes the following allegations: 

That he is a citizen of the United States, residing in Washington County, State of 
Maryland, where his decedent resided during the late civil war; that at different 
times during said period the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, 
took from his decedent in said county and State and appropriated to the use of the 
Army property of the kind and value as follows: 

Item 1. 150 bushels of wheat, at $1.50 |225 

Item 2. 150 bushels of oats, at 50 cents 75 

Item 3. 10 tons of hay, at |15 150 

(Taken in June, 1861, by General Patterson's command.) 

Item 4. 180 bushels of wheat, at $1.50 270 

Item 5. 300 bushels of oats, at 50 cents -. 150 

Item 6. 50 tons of hay, at $15 750 

(Taken in June, 1862, by General Bank's command.) 

Item 7. 900 bushels of wheat, at $1.50 1, 350 

Item 8. 60 acres of growing wheat, at $5 per acre 300 

Item 9. 40 tons of clover hay, at $10 400 

Item 10. 50 tons of timothy hay, at $15 750 

Item 11. 70 bushels of old com, at $1 70 

Irem 12. 40 bushels of rye, at 75 cents 30 

Item 13. 150 bushels of old wheat, at $1.50 22& 

Item 14. 1 fine horse, 4 years old 200 

Item 15. 300 bundles of rye straw, at 10 cents 30 

Item 16. 35 tons of wheat straw, at $8 200 

(Taken in July, 1863, by General Meade's command.) 

Item 17. 150 bushels of wheat, at $1.50 225 

Item 18. 10 acres of growing wheat, at $5 per acre . .• 50 

(Taken in July, 1864, by General Averill's command.) 

Total 5, 450 

The Court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OP PACT^ 

I. During the civil war for the suppression of the rebellion there was taken from 
the farm of the claimant as tenant, in Washington County, State of Maryland, by 
the military forces of the United States for the -use of the Army, stores and supplies 
of the kind and character described in the petition, the_ reasonable value of which 
at the tiihe and place of taking was $2,930, of which the claimant herein is entitled, 
under the terms of his tenancy, to eighteen hundred dollars (|1,800), the same being 
for one-half the grain and for all of the other property described in the petition. 

No payment appears to have been made for any part thereof. 

By the Court. 

Filed October 28, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 6th day of November, 1907. i' 

[seal.] John Randolph, ' 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



172 AIiLOWANCE or CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

GEORGE L. STULL. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10054. George L. Stutl v. The United States.] 

This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- 
nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war 
for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that 
George L. Stull, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from 
whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the 
United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

FUed February, 1902. 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies, or stores, alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 13th day of Febru- 
ary, 1900. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 17th day of February, 1902, found that 
the person alleged to have furnished the supplies, or stores, or from whom they were 
alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- 
out said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 22d day of October, 1906. 

G. W. Hott, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by W. W. 
Scott, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and pro- 
tection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

That he is a citizen of the United States, residing in Frederick County, Md.. where 
he resided during the late civil war; that at different times dm-ing said period the 
military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took firom him in said county 
and State certain quartermaster stores and appropriated the same to the use of the 
Army, as follows: 

Item 1. 5 tons of hay. at |20 $100 

Item 2. 250 bushels of oats, at 80 cents 200 

Item 3. 100 bushels of wheat, at $2.50 250 

Total 550 

(Taken about June 27. 1863, by General Meade's command.) 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

There was taken from the claimant, in the county of Frederick, State of Maryland, 
during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United 
States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, property of the kind and char- 
acter above described, which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of two 
hundred dollars ($200.00), for which no payment appears to have been made. 

By the Court. 

Filed October 29, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 19th day of December, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

CORNELIUS VIRTS. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11334. Cornelius Virts v. The United States.] 
This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- 
nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for 
the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Cor- 
nelius Virts, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from 
whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the 
United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed October 30, 1905. 



• ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. 173 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11334. Cornelius Virts v. The United States.] 
STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores, alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 4th day of March, 
1904. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 30th day of October, 1905, found that 
the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were 
alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- 
out said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 24th day of October, 1905. 
G. W. Hott, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by E. C. Bran- 
denburg, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

That he is a citizen of the United States, residing in Washington Cgunty, State of 
Maryland, where he resided during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion. 

That during said period he was the owner of a certain tract of land situate in said 
county and State, containing about one hundred and fifteen acres, and about one 
hundred and five acres of which was in a highly improved state of cultivation. 

That said land was used and occupied by the military forces of the United States, 
more or less, during the entire war, and from July, 1863, to July, 1865, it was occupied 
so continuously and uninterruptedly as to deprive him entirely of the use thereof. 
That the reasonable rental value of said land during the period it was so used and 
occupied was the sum of five hundred dollars per year, amounting in all to the sum 
of $1,000. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United 
States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took possession of claimant's farm 
of about one hundred and fifteen acres, in Washington County, State of Maryland, and 
occupied the same from July, 1863, to July, 1865. The reasonable rental value thereof 
for the period named was the sum of six hundred dollars. 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

By the Court. 

Filed October 30, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 24th day of November, 1905. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

WILLIAM W. WENNER,. EXECUTOR. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 1242. William W. Wenner, executor of Joseph Waltman, 

deceased, v. The United States.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores, alleged to have been taken by or fur- 
nished to the military forces of the United States, for their use during the late war for 
the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Joseph 
Waltman, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom 
the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United 
States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed May 14, 1888. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 1242. William W. Wenner, executor of Joseph Waltman, 
deceased, v. The United States.] 

statement of case. 

The claim in the above- entitled case for supplies, or stores, alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their use during 



174 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. • 

the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 15th day of Decem- 
ber, 1886. 

On a preliminary inquiry, the court, on the 14th day of May, 1888, found that the 
person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged 
to have been taken, 'was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout 
said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 19th day of November, 1906. 

G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Malcolm 
A. Coles, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

That he is a citizen of the United States, residing in Loudoun County, Va., and 
was duly appointed and qualified as executor of Joseph Waltman, deceased, who 
resided during the late civil war in Frederick County, Md. 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of 
the United States, by proper authority, took from decedent certain quartermaster 
stores, and also used and occupied his decedent's farm, situate near Berlin, Md., for 
camping purposes, for which no payment has been made, and the United Statesjis 
justly indebted to him, as follows: j^gj 

By Capt. S. C. Means, and for which vouchers were given: 

Item 1. 16,800 pounds of hay, at |15 $126 

Item 2. 12,200 feet of timber, at $35 per thousand 427 

By Twenty-eighth New York Regiment, Twenty-eighth Pennsylvania, 
First Maryland Cavalry, Nineteenth Maine, and others: 
. Item 3. For rent of farm, containing about 350 acres, from August 1, 1861, to 

May, 1865, $1,800 per year 6, 600 

7,153 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion there were taken from the 
claimant's decedent, Joseph Waltman, in Frederick County, Md., by proper authority 
for the use of the Army, stores and supplies of the character and kind above described, 
by the military forces of the United States, who also took and occupied real estate 
belonging to claimant's decedent from August, 1861, to May, 1865. The reasonable 
value of said goods at the time and place of taking, together with the rental value of 
said real estate during the period of occupancy, amounts to three thousand two hun- 
dred and seventy dollars ($3,270), for which no payment appears to have been made. 

By the Court. 

Filed December 3, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 7th day of December, 1906. 

[seal.] ' John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

MASSACHUSETTS. 
WILLIAM W. DUTCHER. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-45. .William "W. Dutcher v. The United States.] 
STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Committee 
on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The 
case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 18th day of March, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker and Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General 
by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

'The claimant m his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Essex, in 
the State of Massachusetts, 



ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIISr CLAIMS. 175 

2. That he, being the first sergeant of Company B, Twentjr-third Regiment of Mas- 
sachusetts Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor 
of the State of Massachusetts as first lieutenant thereof on September 29, 1864; and 
that from and after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade 
until April 2, 1865, when he was mustered in as such; said regiment was continuously 
below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and 
no other, he was refused muster and recognition in the grade of first lieutenant during 
said period. 

3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances 
of a first sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of 
first lieutenant. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury' Departments and upon other 
evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. William W. Dutcher, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States 
and resident in the county of Essex, in the State of Massachusetts. 

2. On September 29, 1864, the said William W. Dutcher was first sergeant of Com- 
pany B, Twenty- third Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry. On that date 
and until he was mustered into the service — to wit, on April 2, 1865 — the same was 
and continued to be below the minimum number prescrifjed by General Order No. 
182 of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act 
of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 734). 

The first lieutenant of said Company B, Twenty-third Regiment Massachusetts 
Volunteer Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties 
of first lieutenant devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed 
and performed all the duties of first lieutenant of said Company B, Twenty-third 
Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry. 

The governor of the State of Massachusetts also issued to this claimant a commission 
as first lieutenant. Company B, Twenty-third Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer 
Infantry. 

3. On the said September 29, 1864, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused 
to muster this claimant as first lieutenant of said Company B, Twenty-third Regiment 
Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its minimum 
strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of first lieutenant 
until he was mustered into the service as such,. April 2, 1865. 

4. During the period aforesaid, to wit, from September 29, 1864, to April 1, 1865, this 
claimant employed no servant not enlisted. 

5. During said period this claimant did draw radons from the Government. 

6. If the said William W. Dutcher should be deemed fu'st lieutenant of Company 
B, Twenty-third Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay 
of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a first sergeant, which 
he has received, and that of a first lieutenant, to which he would have been entitled 
had he been mustered for the period from September 29, 1864, to April 1, 1865, would 

■ amount to 1457.84 (four hundred and fifty-seven dollars and eighty-four cents), as 
reported by the Auditor for the War Department, including a short payment of $10.10 
income tax on remuster. 

By the Court. 
Filed March 18, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the coiu't. 

Test this 19th day of March, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claivis. 

WILLIAM B. KIMBALL. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-96. William B. Kimball v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Committee 
on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The 
case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 1st day of April, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker and Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 



176 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

The claimant in liis petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of Hamp- 
shire, in the State of Massachusetts. 

2. That he, being the first lieutenant of Company F, Thirteenth Regiment of Massa- 
chusetts Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor 
of the State of Massachusetts as captain thereof on October 4, 1863, and that from and 
after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until Decem- 
ber 8, 1863, when he was mustered in as captain; said regiment was continuously 
below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, 
and no other, he was refused muster and recognition in the grade of captain during 
said period. 

3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances 
of a first lieutenant, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of 
captain. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments, and^ upon other 
evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel, the court makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. William B. Kimball, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States 
and resident in the county of Hampshire, in the State of Massachusetts. 

2. On October 4, 1863, the said William B. Kimball was first lieutenant of Company 
F, Thirteenth Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until 
he was mustered into the service, to wit, on December 8, 1863, the same was and con- 
tinued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Order No. 182 of the 
War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress 
approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 734). 

The captain of said Company F, Thirteenth Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer 
Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of captain 
devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all 
the duties of captain of said Company F, Thirteenth Regiment Massachusetts Volun- 
teer Infantry. 

The governor of the State of Massachusetts also issued to this claimant a commission 
as captain Company F, Thirteenth Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry. 

3. On the said October 4, 1863, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused 
to muster this claimant as captain of said Company F, Thirteenth Regiment Massa- 
chusetts Volunteer Infantry,- solely because his command was below its minimum 
strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of captain until 
he was mustered into the service as such, December 8, 1863. 

4. If the said W^illiam B. Kim^ball should be deemed captain of Company F, 
Thirteenth Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Infantiy, and entitled to the pay 
of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a first lieutenant, 
which he has received, and that of a captain, to which he would have been entitled 
had he been mustered for the period from October 4, 1863, to December 8, 1863, would 
amount to $21.84 (twenty-one dollars and eighty -four cents), as reported by the Auditor 
for the War Department, including a deduction of 17 cents for income tax on remuster. 

By the Court. 
Filed April 1, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 2d day of April, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

SUSAN SHATSWELL, EXECUTRIX. 

[In the Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-157. Susan Shatswell, executrix of Nathaniel 
Shatswell, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Committee 
on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The 
case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 3d day of December, 1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant and the Attorney-General, by 
James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and the protection of the interests of the United States. 



ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. 177 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

1. That she is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Essex, in 
the State of Massachusetts, and is the executrix of Nathaniel Shatswell, deceased. 

2. That said Nathaniel Shatswell, being the major of the First Regiment of Massa- 
chusetts Volunteers, Heavy Artillery, was duly appointed or commissioned by the 
governor of the State of Massachusetts as lieutenant-colonel thereof on January 26, 1865, 
and that from and after said date the said Nathaniel Shatswell assumed and performed 
all the duties of his said grade until May 17, 1865, when he was mustered in as such; 
said regiment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and 
regulation, and for this reason, and no other, said Nathaniel Shatswell was refused mus- 
ter and recognition in the grade of lieutenant-colonel during said period. 

3. That during said period the said Nathaniel Shatswell was allowed and paid only 
the pay and allowances of &■ major, although he was in the continuous performance of 
lieutenant-colonel. 

4. The said Nathaniel Shatswell, being the lieutenant-colonel of said First Regi- 
ment of Massachusetts Volunteer Heavy Artillery, was also duly appointed or com- 
missioned by the governor of the State of Massachusetts as colonel thereof on January 
27, 1865, and that from and after May 17, 1865, the said Nathaniel Shatswell assumed 
and performed all the duties of his said grade until August 26, 1865, when he was 
mustered out as lieutenant-colonel; said regiment was continuously below the mini- 
mum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, said 
Nathaniel Shatswell was refused muster and recognition in the grade of lieutenant- 
colonel during said period. 

5. That during said period the said Nathaniel Shatswell was allowed and paid only 
the pay and allowances of a lieutenant-colonel, although he was in the continuous 
performance of the duties of colonel, in command of his regiment. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other 
evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the comt makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. Susan Shatswell, executrix of Nathaniel Shatswell, deceased, the claimant of this 
case, is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of Essex, in the State 
of Massachusetts. 

2. On January 26, 1865, Nathaniel Shatswell was major of the First Regiment of 
Massachusetts Volunteer Heavy Artillery. On that date and until he was mustered 
into the service, to wit, on May 17, 1865, the same was and continued to be below the 
minimum number prescribed by General Order, No. 182, of the War Department of 
June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 
1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 734). 

The lieutenant-colonel of said First Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Heavy 
Artillery, being then and thereafter out of service in said gi-ade, the duties of 
lieutenant-colonel devolved upon said Nathaniel Shatswell, who then and thereafter 
assumed and performed all the duties of lieutenant-colonel of said First Regiment 
Massachusetts Volunteer Heavy Artillery, until mustered in as such May 17, 1865. 

The governor of the State of Massachusetts also issued to said Nathaniel Shatswell 
a commission as lieutenant-colonel First Regiment of Massachusetts Volunteer Heavy 
Artillery. 

3. On the said January 26, 1865, the mustering oflicer then and thereafter refused 
to muster the said Nathaniel Shatswell as lieutenant-colonel of said First Regiment 
of Massachusetts Volunteer Heavy Artillery, solely because his command was below 
its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of 
lieutenant-colonel until he was mustered into the service as such May 17, 1865. 

4. On May 17, 1865, Nathaniel Shatswell was lieutenant-colonel First Regiment of 
Massachusetts Volunteer Heavy Artillery. On that date and until he was mustered 
out of the service, to wit, on August 26, 1865, the same was and continued to be below 
the minimum number prescribed by General Order, No. 182, of the War Department 
of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 
3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 734). 

The colonel of said First Regiment, Massachusetts Volunteers, Heavy Artillery, 
being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of colonel devolved 
upon said Nathaniel Shatswell, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all the 
duties of colonel of said First Regiment, Massachusetts Volunteers, Heavy Artillery, 
until mustered out as lieutenant-colonel, August 26, 1865. 

The governor of the State of Massachusetts also issued to said Nathaniel Shatswell a 
commission as colonel. First Regiment of Massachusetts Volunteers, Heavy Artillery. 

5. On the said May 17, 1865, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to 

H. Rep. 543, 60-1 12 



178 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

muster the said Nathaniel Shatswell as colonel of said First Regiment of Massachusetts 
Volunteers, Heavy Artillery, solely because his command was below its minimum 
strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of colonel until he 
was mustered out of the service as lieutenant-colonel. 

6. If the said Nathaniel Shatswell should be deemed lieutenant-colonel and colonel 
of First Regiment of Massachusetts Volunteers, Heavy Artillery, and entitled to the 
pay of said grades, the difference between his pay and allowances as a major and lieu- 
tenant-colonel which he has received, and that of a lieutenant-colonel and colonel to 
which he would have been entitled had he been mustered from the period from Janu- 
ary 26, 1865, to August 26, 1865, would amount to $244.90, as reported by the Auditor 
for the War Department, including short payments of 120.57. 

7. Income tax, if to be deducted, would amount to 111.88, and if same is deducted 
the balance would be two hundred and thirty- three dollars and two cents ($233.02). 

By the Court. 
Filed December 3, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 6th day of December, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

HORACE P. WILLIAMS. 

Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 10306. Horace P. Williams v. The United States.] 
STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for services rendered during the late war for 
the suppression of- the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Committee on 
War Claims, House of Representatives, on the 8th day of January, 1901. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 22d day of March, 1904. 
Jerome F. Manning, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by W. 
W. Scott, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

That he is a citizen of the United States and resides in the city of Boston, county 
of Suffolk, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, does business at 39 Avon street in said 
city, and that he resided in said city during the late war of the rebellion. That he 
was duly commissioned as major of the Fifty-sixth Regiment of Massachusetts 
Volunteers ©n July 14, 1863, and that he held said commission up to and including 
March 4, 1864, when he resigned the same and was honorably discharged from the 
service by reason of physical inability to longer perform his duties as major, or any 
duty as said recruiting officer; that thereafter, when said regiment was mustered for 
pay, he, the said petitioner, was unable to attend said muster for that purpose (by 
reason of said illness), and that he has never been paid for his said services as said 
recruiting officer during said period from July 14, 1863, to March 4, 1864, both in- 
clusive; and that he has not received, in any way, any pay or compensation what- 
soever, either directly or indirectly, from the Govermuent of the United States, 
or from said Commonwealth of Massachusetts, or from any other sources whatsoever; 
that he is entitled to pay and compensation for his said services as said major and 
recruiting officer during said period, at- the rate of $208.33 per month, or, in other 
words, the sum total of about $1,583. 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDING OF FACTS. 

The claimant, Horace P. Williams, was dm"ing the years 1863 and 1864 an inhab- 
itant and citizen of Boston, Mass. On the 14th day of July, 1863, he was commis- 
sioned by the governor of Massachusetts as major of the Fifty-sixth Massachusetts 
Veteran Infantry, and was discharged on March 4, 1864, by resignation on account 
of sickness. He was detailed as superintendent of the recruiting service on July 15, 
1863. 

He performed said service at headquarters in Boston until November 24, 1863. On 
said date he went on duty as a commandant and recruiting officer. The service which 
he performed as recruiting officer was in appointing lieutenants to their field of duty 
and instructing them. The service was performed in the towns and cities in the 
vicinity of Boston. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 179 

The claimant never received any pay for said service. He applied fo the War 
Department, and was told there was no law by which he could be paid, 
i^' The claimant then gave his papers to a Member of the House of Representatives 
from Massachusetts, who presented a bill to Congress — House bill No. 2373, Fifty- 
sixth Congress, first session — entitled "A bill for the relief of Horace P. Williams." 

Claimant was never mustered into the service of the United States. When the 
regiment was mustered claimant igas sick and not present. "WTiile claimant was 
recruiting officer he helped to organize and equip men in camp. 

The claim was first presented in 1889. Claimant made reports during his service 
to the commanding officer. Col. C. E. Griswold. He made daily reports of men in 
camp. He left camp on January 7, 1864, relieved of command then on account of 
sickness, but not discharged until March 4, 1864. The regiment was mustered in on 
the 25th day of February, 1864. The pay of a major after muster into the service of 
the United States was at the rate of $208.33 per month. 

By the Court. 

Filed May 16, 1904. 

A true copy. 

Attest this 10th day of January, 1905. 

[seal.] Archibald Hopkins, Chief Clerk. 

MICHIGAN. 

HARRIET C. BEGOLE, MOTHER. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10621. Harriet C. Begole, mother of Wi'liam M. Begole, v. The 

United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Commit- 
tee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The 
case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 21st day of January, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant and the Attorney-General, 
by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

1. That she is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of Genesee, 
in the State of Michigan, and is the mother of William M. Begole, deceased. 

2. That said William M. Begole being the second lieutenant of Company A, Twenty- 
third Regiment of Michigan Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or conimissioned 
by the governor of the State of Michigan as first lieutenant thereof on June 20, 1864; 
and that from and after said date the said William M. Begole assumed and performed 
all the duties of his said grade until October 15, 1864, when he died in hospital; said 
regiment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regu- 
lation, and for this reason, and no other, said William M. Begole was refused muster and 
recognition in the grade of first lieutenant during said period. 

3. That during said period the said William M. Begole was allowed and paid only 
the pay and allowances of a second lieutenant, although he was in the continuous 
performance of the duties of . • 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other 
evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following 

- FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. Harriet C. Begole, the claimant of this case, is a citizen of the United States and 
resident of the county of Genesee, in the State of Michigan. 

2. On June 20, 1864, William M. Begole was second lieutenant of CompanyA, Twenty- 
third Regiment of Michigan Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he died in 
the service, to wit, on October 15, 1864, the same was and continued to be below the 
minimum number prescribed by General Orders, No. 182, of the War Department, of 
June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20, of the act of Congress approved March 3, 
1863 (12 Stat. L., 734). . " 

The first lieutenant of said Company A, Twenty-third Regiment Michigan Volunteer 
Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of first lieu- 
tenant devolved upon said William M. Begole, who then and thereafter was absent, 
sick in hospital, where he died October 15, 1864. 



180 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

The governor of the State of Michigan also issued to said William M. Begole a com- 
mission as first lieutenant, Company A, Twenty-third Regiment of Michigan Volunteer 
Infantry. 

3. On the said June 20, 1864, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to 
muster the said William M. Begole as fiirst lieutenant of said Company A, Twenty- 
third Regiment of Michigan Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was 
below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, and also he was then absent sick until he 
died, October 15, 1864. 

6. If the said William M. Begole should be deemed first lieutenant of Company A, 
Twenty-third Regiment of Michigan Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay of 

' that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a second lieutenant, 
which he has received, and that of a first lieutenant, to which he would have been 
entitled had he been mustered from the period from June 20, 1864, to October 15, 1864, 
would amount to $19.33, without any deduction for income tax as reported by the 
Auditor for the War Department. 

7. Income tax, if to be dedcuted, would amount to 93 cents, leaving a balance of 
eighteen dollars and forty cents (|18.40). 

By the Court. 
Filed January 21, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 23d day of January, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

WILLIAM A. CLARK. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10649. Wm. A. Clark v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the Court by the Commit- 
tee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May. 1902. 
The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 14th day of January, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant m his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the city of Ann Arbor, 
in the State of Michigan. 

2. That he, being the first sergeant of Company H, Eighth Regiment of Michigan 
Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the 
State of Michigan as second lieutenant thereof on May 6, 1864, and that from and 
after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until Decem- 
ber 6, 1864, when he was mustered in as first lieutenant; said regiment was contin- 
uously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this 
reason, and no other, he was refused muster and recognition in the grade of second 
lieutenant during said period. 

3. That during said period he ^was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances 
of a first sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of 
second lieutenant. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other 
evidence, and upon briefs and arguments of counsel, the court makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. William A. Clark, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States 
and resident in the city of Ann Arbor, in the State of Michigan. 

2. On May 6, 1864, the said William A. Clark was first sergeant of Company H, 
Eighth Regiment Michigan Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was 
mustered into the service, to wit, on December 6, 1864, the same was and continued 
to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Orders, No. 182, of the War 
Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress 
approved March 3, 1863. (12 Stat. L., 734.) 

The second lieutenant of said Company H, Eighth Regiment Michigan Volunteer 
Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of second 
lieutenant devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and per- 



AliLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 181 

formed all the duties of second lieutenant of said Company H, Eighth Eegiment 
Michigan Volunteer Infantry, until December 6, 1864, when he was mustered into 
service as first lieutenant of said company. 

The governor of the State of Michigan also issued to this claimant a commission as 
second lieutenant Company H, Eighth Regiment Michigan Volunteer Infantry. 

3. On the said May 6, 1864, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to 
muster this claimant as second lieutenant of said Company H, Eighth Regiment 
Michigan Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its minimum 
strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of second lieutenant 
until he was mustered into the service as first lieutenant on December 6, 1864. 

4. During the period aforesaid, to wit, from May 6, 1864, to December 5, 1864, this 
claimant employed no servant not enlisted. 

5. During said period this claimant did not draw rations from the Government. 

6. If the said William A. Clark should be deemed second lieutenant of Company H, 
Eighth Regiment Michigan Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay of that grade, 
the difference between his pay and allowances as a first sergeant, which he has received, 
and that of a second lieutenant, to which he would have been entitled had he been 
mustered for the period from May 6, 1864, to December 5, 1864, would amount to 
$329.30, as reported by the Auditor for the War Department, without any deduction 
for income tax and with a deduction of $50 for bounty forfeited. 

7. Income tax, if to be deducted, would amount to $9.93, leaving a balance of three 
hundred and nineteen dollars and thirty-seven cents ($319.37). 

By the Court. 
Filed January 14, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 17th day of January, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claivis. 

JAMES S. DE LAND. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-37. James S. De Land v. The United States.] 
STATEMENT OF CA§E. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- 
mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 27th day of March, 
1906. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 18th day of March, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker and Jones appeared for the claimant and the Attorney-General, 
by his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and the protection 
of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the city of Detroit, in 
the State of Michigan. 

2. That he, being the sergeant-major of the First Regiment of Michigan Sharp- 
shooters Volunteers, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State 
of Michigan as first lieutenant thereof on June 20, 1864; and that from and after July 7, 
1864, he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until September 13, 
1864, when he was mustered in as such; said regiment was continuously below the 
minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason and no other 
he was refused muster and recognition in the grade of first lieutenant during said 
period. 

3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances 
of a sergeant-major, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of 
first lieutenant. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other 
evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I 

1. James S. De Land, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and 
resident in the city of Detroit, in the State of Michigan. 

2. On July 7, 1864, the said James S. De Land was sergeant-major of the First Regi- 
ment Michigan Volunteer Sharpshooters. On that date and until he "was mustered 
out of the service, to wit, on September 13, 1864, the same was and continued to be 
below the minimum number prescribed by General Order No. 182 of the War Depart- 
ment of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved 
March 3, 1863. (12 Stat. L., p. 734.) 



182 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

The first lieutenant of said Company E, First Regiment Michigan Volunteer Sharp- 
shooters, being then and thereafter out of service in'said grade, the duties of first lieu- 
tenant devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and performed 
all the duties of first lieutenant of said Company E, First Regiment Michigan Volun- 
teer Sharpshooters. 

The governor of the State of Michigan also issued to this claimant a commission as 
first lieutenant. Company E, First Regiment "Michigan Volunteer Sharpshooters. 

3. On the said July 7, 1864, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to 
muster this claimant as first lieutenant of said Company E, First Regiment Michigan 
Volunteer Sharpshooters, solely because his command was below its minimum strength 
as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of first lieutenant until he 
was mustered into the service as such September 13, 1864. 

4. During the period aforesaid, to wit, from July 7, 1864, to September 12, 1864, 
this claimant employed one servant, not enlisted. 

5. During said period this claimant did not draw rations from the Government. 

6. If the said James S. De Land should be deemed first lieutenant of Company E, 
First Regiment Michigan Volunteer Shrapshooters, and entitled to the pay of that 
grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a sergeant-major which he 
has received, and that of a first lieutenant, to which he would have been entitled had 
he been mustered for the period from July 7, 1864, to September 12, 1864, would 
amount to $202.88 (two hundred and two dollars and eighty-eight cents), as reported 
by the Auditor for the War Department, including |1.08 income tax erroneously 
deducted. 

By the Couet. 
Filed March 18, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 19th day of March, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

CHILDREN OF EBENEZER GOULD. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 1(7688. Lucius E. Gould, Abby E. Allison, and Mary I. Todd, 
children of Ebenezer Gould, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Committee 
on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The 
case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 7th day of January, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimants in their petition make substantially the following allegations: 

1. That they are citizens of the United States and residents of the county of Shia- 
wassee, in the State of Michigan, and the children and sole heirs at law of Ebenezer 
Gould, deceased. 

2. That said Ebenezer Gould, being the lieutenant-colonel of the Fifth Regiment 
of Michigan Volunteer Cavalry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor 
of the State of Michigan as colonel thereof on September 21, 1864, and that from 
and after September 24, 1864, the said Ebenezer Gould assumed and performed all the 
duties of his said grade until November 10, 1864, when he was mustered out as lieu- 
tenant-colonel; said regiment was continuously below the minimum number pre- 
scribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, said Ebenezer Gould 
was refused muster and recognition in the grade of colonel during said period. 

3. That during said period the said Ebenezer Gould was allowed and paid only the 
pay and allowances of a lieutenant-colonel, although he was in the continuous per- 
formance of the duties of colonel. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other 
evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following 

FINDINOS OP FACT. 

1. Lucius E. Gould, Abby E. Allison, and Mary I. Todd, the claimants of this 
case, are citizens of the United States and resident of the county of Shiawassee, in 
the State of Michigan. 



ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIIST CLAIMS. 183 

2. On September 21, 1864, Ebenezer Gould was lieutenant-colonel Fifth Regiment 
of Michigan Volunteer Cavalry. On that date and until he was mustered out of the 
service, to wit, on November 10, 1864, the same was and continued to be below the 
minimum number prescribed by General Order No. 182 of the War Department of June 
20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 
(12 Stat. L., 734). 

The colonel (Russell A. Alger) of said Fifth Regiment Michigan Volunteer Cavalry 
being on September 24, 1864, and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties 
of colonel devolved upon said Ebenezer Gould, who then and thereafter assumed and 
performed all the duties of colonel of said Fifth Regiment Michigan Volunteer Cavalry 
until mustered out as lieutenant-colonel November 10, 1864. 

The governor of the State of Michigan also issued to said Ebenezer Gould a com- 
mission as colonel Fifth Regiment of Michigan Volunteer Cavalry. 

3. On the said September 24, 1864, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused 
to muster the said Ebenezer Gould as colonel of said Fifth Regiment of Michigan 
Volunteer Cavalry, solely because his command was below its minimum strength, 
as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of colonel until he was 
mustered out of the service as lieutenant-colonel, November 20, 1864. 

4. If the said Ebenezer Gould should be deemed colonel of Fifth Regiment of 
Michigan Volunteer Cavalry and entitled to the pay of that grade, the difference 
between his pay and allowances as a lieutenant-colonel, which he has received, and 
that of a colonel, to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered from 
the period from September 24, 1864, to November 20, 1864, would amount to $42.70, 
without any deduction being made for income tax, as reported by the Auditor for the 
War Department. 

5. Income tax, if to be deducted, would amount to 12.14, leaving a balance of 
forty dollars and fifty-six cents ($40.56). 

By the Court. 
Filed January 7, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 9th day of January, 1907. 

[seal.] . John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

GEORGE J. AND JOSEPH F. LOCKLEY AND SARAH E. TODD, CHILDREN 
OF GEORGE LOCKLEY. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-107. George J. Lockley, Joseph F. Lockley, and Sarah 
E. Todd, children of George Lockley, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Committee 
on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 27th day of March, 1906. The 
case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 1st day of April, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker and Jones appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, 
by George M. Anderson, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimants in their petition make substantially the following allegations: 

1. That they are citizens of the United States and residents of the States of New 
York, Michigan, and Nevada, and are the children and sole heirs of George Lockley, 
deceased. 

2. That said George Lockley, being the lieutenant-colonel of the First Regiment 
of Michigan Volunteer Infantry, was dvily appointed or commissioned by the governor 
of the State of Michigan as colonel thereof on May 30, 1865, and that from and after said 
date the said George Lockley assumed and performed all the duties of his said gi-ade 
until July 21, 1865, when he was mustered out as lieutenant-colonel; said regiment was 
continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for 
this reason, and no other, said George Lockley was refused muster and recognition in 
the grade of colonel during said period. 

3. That during said period the said George Lockley was allowed and paid only 
the pay and allowances of a lieutenant-colonel, although he was in the continuous 
performance of the duties of colonel. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments, and upon 
other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel, the court makes the fol- 
lowing 



184 AULOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. George J. Lockley, Joseph F. Lockley, and Sarah E. Todd, the claimants of this 
case, are citizens of the United States and residents of the States of New York, Mich- 
igan, and Nevada. 

2. On May 30, 1865, George Lockley was lieutenant-colonel of the Fii'st Regiment 
of Michigan Volunteer Infantry On that date and until he was mustered out of the 
service, to wit, on July 21, 1865, the same was and continued to be below the minimum, 
number prescribed by General Order No. 182 of the War Department of June 20, 1863, 
carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. 
L.,p.734). 

The colonel of said First Regiment Michigan Volunteer Infantry, being then and 
thereafter out of service in said gi'ade, the duties of colonel devolved upon said George 
Lockley, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all the duties of colonel of 
said First Regiment Michigan Volunteer Infantry. 

The governor of the State of Michigan also issued to said George Lockley a commis- 
sion as colonel First Regiment of Michigan Volunteer Infantry. 

3. On the said May 30, 1865, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to mus- 
ter the said George Lockley as colonel of said First Regiment of Michigan Volunteer 
Infantry, solely because his command was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, 
although he continued to perform the duties of colonel until he was mustered out of 
the service as lieutenant-colonel July 21, 1865. 

4. If the said George Lockley should be deemed colonel of the Fii'st Regiment of 
Michigan Volunteer Infantry and entitled to the pay of that grade, the difference 
between his pay and allowances as a lieutenant-colonel, which he has received, and 
that of a colonel, to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered from 
the period from May 30, 1865, to July 21, 1865, would amount to $99.50 (ninety-nine 
dollars and fifty cents), as reported by the Auditor for the War Department. 

By the Court. 
Filed April 1, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 2d day of April, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

MARIA N. SWAIN. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10804. Maria N. Swain, widow of Elisha R. Swain, deceased, 

V. The United States.] 



It is ordered that pursuant to the agreement of the parties in the above-entitled cause 
the findings of fact filed therein May 19, 1905, be, and the same are hereby, withdrawn, 
and new findings of fact are filed this day in accordance with the stipulation of the 
parties. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10804. Elisha R. Swain v. The United States.] 
statement of case. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between the pay and allowances 
of a second lieutenant and a first sergeant in Company B, Third Michigan Infantry 
Volunteers, in the late civil war, was transmitted to the court May 14, 1902, by the 
Committee on AVar Claims of the House of Representatives. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 15th day of May, 1905, Penne- 
baker & Jones, esqs., appearing for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by James 
A. Tanner, esq., his assistant, and under his dhection, appearing for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his i^etition makes the following allegations: 

That he was appointed or commissioned second lieutenant in the Third Regiment 
Michigan Volunteer Infantry during the war of the rebellion; that on or about Novem- 
ber 28, 1865, he entered upon the duties of his said grade, but was denied the pay and 
allowances thereof because of the prohilntion thereof by General Order of the War De- 

Sartment No. 182, June 20, 1863, based on section 20 of the act of Congress approved 
[arch 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 734) ; that his claim for compensation was presented to the 



ALLOWANCE OF CEETAHST CLAIMS. 185 

accounting officers of the Treasury, and rejected under the thu-d proviso of the act of 
February 24, 1897, on the ground that said proviso excluded from its benefits cases 
where the commission bears date subsequent to June 20, 1863, when the command was 
below minimum strength. 

The coiut, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. Claimant was a sergeant in Company B, Third Michigan Infantry Volunteers, 
and was, on November 28, 1865, promoted, and duly appointed second lieutenant of 
said company, and he performed the duties of that grade continuously untU June 12, 
1866, when he was honorably discharged. 

- II. During the whole of this period claimant's command was in active duty against 
the enemy in the field, and had, by the casualties of war, been reduced in number 
below its minimum strength, as requu'ed by law and regulation, and he was therefore, 
and for no other reason, refused muster, and was not allowed and paid the pay and 
allowances of a second lieutenant of infantry, although he actually performed the 
duties of that grade during said period. 

III. If -the Congress desire to allow the claimant the pay and allowances of a second 
lieutenant during the period lie served as such under his commission, from November 
28, 1865, to June 12, 1866, without having been mustered into the service as such, then 
the amount due him is $714.15, less the sum of $352.29 for pay and allowances received 
by him during the same period as fii'st sergeant on the rolls of the company on which 
he was borne for pay, clothing, rations, travel pay and subsistence, and for overpay- 
ments of bounty, leaving a difference in his favor of $361.86. 

If the Congress also desire to deduct from said last sum the income tax of $18.65, 
which would have been deducted had the claimant been mustered into the service and 
settled with as second lieutenant during his service, then the balance remaining would 
be $343.21 (three hundred and forty-three dollars and twenty-one cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed December 11, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 5th day of January, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

MINNESOTA. 

OMAR H. CASE. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10644. Omar H. Case v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Committee 
on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The 
case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 21st day of January, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant and the Attorney-General, 
by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Fillmore, 
in the State of Minnesota. 

2. That he, being the first sergeant of Company E, Seventh Regiment of Minnesota 
Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State 
of Minnesota as second lieutenant thereof on May 13, 1865; and that from and after 
said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until August 16, 
1865, when he was mustered out as first sergeant; said regiment was continuously 
below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason 
and no other, he was refused muster and recognition in the grade of second lieutenant 
during said period. 

3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances of 
a first sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of second 
lieutenant. 



186 - aUjOWance of certain claims. 

Upon the reports fiu'nished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other 
evidence and upon briefs, and arguments of counsel the court makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. Omar H. Case, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and resi- 
dent in the county of Fillmore, in the State of Minnesota. 

2. On May 13, 1865, the said Omar H. Case was first sergeant of Company E, Seventh 
Regiment Minnesota Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was mustered 
out the service, to wit, on August 16, 1865, the same was and continued to be below 
the minimum number prescribed by General Order No. 182 of the War Department 
of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 
1863(12 Stat. L., p. 734). 

The second lieutenant of said Company E, Seventh Regiment Minnesota Volunteer 
Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of second 
lieutenant devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and per- 
formed all the duties of second lieutenant of said Company E, Seventh Regiment 
Minnesota Volunteer Infantry, until August 16, 1865, when he was mustered out as 
fii'st sergeant. 

The governor of the State of Minnesota also issued to this claimant a commission as 
second lieutenant, Company E, Seventh Regiment Minnesota Volunteer Infantry. 

3. On the said 13th of May, 1865, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused 
to muster this claimant as second lieutenant of said Company E, Seventh Regiment 
Minnesota Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its minimum 
strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of second lieuten- 
ant until he was mustered out the service as first sergeant. 

4. During the period aforesaid, to wit, from May 13, 1865, to August 16, 1865, this 
claimant did not employ a servant, not enlisted. 

5. Dm'ing said period this claimant did draw rations from the Government. 

6. If the said Omar H. Case should be deemed second lieutenant of Company E, 
Seventh Regiment Minnesota Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay of that 
grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as first sergeant, which he has 
received, and that of a second lieutenant to which he would have been entitled had 
he been mustered for the period from May 13, 1865, to August 16, 1865, would amount 
to 1191.63 without any deduction for income tax, as reported by the Auditor for the 
War Department, including a short payment of 16 cents. 

7. Income tax, if to be deducted, would amount to $10.02, leaving a balance of 
one hundred and eighty-one dollars and sixty-one cents ($181.61). 

By the Court. 
Filed January 27, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 24th day of January, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

_ Assit^tant Clerk Court of Claims. 

FREDERICK LAMBRECHT. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12640-26. Frederick Lambrecht v. Tlie United States.] 

statement OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- 
mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. 
The case was brought to a hearing, on its merits, on the 18th day of March, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant and the Attorney-General, 
by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant, in his petition, makes substantially the following allegations: 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Ramsey, 
in the State of Minnesota. 

2. That he, being the first sergeant of Company G, Second Regiment of Minnesota 
Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the 
State of Minnesota as second lieutenant thereof on January 29, 1865; and that from 
and after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade untQ 
April 25, 1865, when he was mustered in as such; said regiment was continuously 
below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 187 

and no other, he was refused muster and recognition in the grade of second lieuten- 
ant during said period. 

3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances 
of a first sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of 
second lieutenant. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other 
evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. Frederick Lambrecht, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States 
and resident in the county of Ramsey, in the State of Minnesota. 

2. On January 29, 1865, the said Frederick Lambrecht was first sergeant of Com- 
pany G, Second Regiment Minnesota Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until 
he was mustered into the service, to wit, on April 25, 1865, the same was and con- 
tinued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Order No. 182 of 
the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of 
Congress approved March 3, 1863. (12 Stat. L., 734.) 

The second lieutenant of said Company G, Second Regiment Minnesota Volunteer 
Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of second 
lieutenant devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and per- 
formed all the duties of second lieutenant of said Company G, Second Regiment 
Minnesota Volunteer Infantry. 

The governor of the State of Minnesota also issued to this claimant a commission as 
second lieutenant Company G, Second Regiment Minnesota Volunteer Infantry. 

3. On the said January 29, 1865, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused 
to muster this claimant as second lieutenant of said Company G, Second Regiment 
Minnesota Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its minimum 
strength, as aforesaid, although he continued, to perform the duties of second lieuten- 
ant until he was mustered into the service as such, April 25, 1865. 

4. During the period aforesaid, to wit, from January 29, 1865, to April 25, 1865, 
this claimant employed no servant not enlisted. 

5. During said period this claimant did draw rations from the Government. 

6. If the said Frederick Lambrecht should be deemed second lieutenant of Com- 
pany G, Second Regiment Minnesota Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the' pay of 
that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a fii-st sergeant, which 
he has received, and that of a second lieutenant to which he would have been enti- 
tled had he been mustered for the period from January 29, 1865, to April 24, 1865, 
would amount to $324.73 (three hundred and twenty-four dollars and seventy-three 
cents), as reported by the Auditor for the War Department, including |25 advance 
bounty erroneously deducted. 

By the Court. 
Filed March 18, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 19th day of March, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

* . Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

WARREN ONAN. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12640-23. Warren Onan v. The United States.] 
statement of case. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Committee 
on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 16th day of -June, 1906. The 
case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 18th day of March, 1907. 

Messers. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant and the Attorney-General, 
by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Clay in the 
State of Minnesota; 

2. That he, being the second lieutenant of Company C, One hundred and fifty-fourth 
Regiment of New York Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by 
the governor of the State of New York as first lieutenant thereof on February 20, 1865; 



188 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

and that from, and after said date lie assumed and performed all the duties of his said 
grade until June 11, 1865, when he was mustered out as second lieutenant; said regi- 
ment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, 
and for this reason, and no other, he was refused muster and recognition in the grade of 
first lieutenant during said period. 

3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances of a 
second lieutenant, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of first 
lieutenant. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other 
evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. Warren Onan, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and 
resident in the county of Clay, in the State of Minnesota. 

2. On February 20, 1865, the said Warren Onan was second lieutenant of Company C, 
One hundred and fifty-fourth Regiment New York Volunteer Infantry. On that date 
and until he was mustered out of the service, to wit, on June 23, 1865, the same was and 
continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Order No. 182 of 
the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Con- 
gress approved March 3, 1863. (12 Stat. L., 734.) 

The first lieutenant of said Company C, One hundred and fifty -fourth Regiment New 
York Volunteer Infantry being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the 
duties of first lieutenant devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed 
and performed all the duties of first lieutenant of said Company C, One hundred and 
fifty-foiirth Regiment New York Volunteer Infantry. 

The governor of the State of New York also issued to this claimant a commission as 
first lieutenant Company C, One hundred-and fifty-fourth Regiment New York Volun- 
teer Infantry. 

3. On the said February 20, 1865, the mustering, officer then and thereafter refused 
to muster this claimant as fu'st lieutenant of said Company C, One hundred and fifty- 
fourth Regiment New York Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was 
below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perforni the duties 
of first lieutenant until he was mustered out of the service as second lieutenant, June 
23, 1865. 

4. If the said Warren Onan should be deemed first lieutenant of Company C, One 
hundred and fifty-foui-th Regiment New York Volunteer Infantry and entitled to the 
pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a second lieutenant 
which he has received, and that of a first lieutenant to which he would have been 
entitled had he been mustered for the period from February 20, 1865, to June 23, 1865, 
would amount to 139.74 (thirty-nine dollars and seventy -four cents), as reported by 
the Auditor for the War Department. 

By the Court. 
Filed March 18, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 19th day of March, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

MISSISSIPPI. 
LEOPOLD BICKART. 

(Court of Claims. Congressional, Nos. 1235, 3466. Christian Schwartz and Leopold Bickart v. The 

United States.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or 
furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war 
for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that 
Christian Schwartz and Leopold Bickart, the persons alleged to have furnished such 
supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, were loj^al 
to the Government of the United States throughout said war. 

. By the Court. 

Filed December 2, 1901. 



ALLOWANCE OF CEETAUsT CLAIMS. 189 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case Nos. 1235, 3466. Leopold Bicliart v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims, House of Representatives, on the 6th day of March, 1888. 

On a preliminary inquiiy the court, on the 2d day of December, 1901, found that 
the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or. from whom they were 
alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- 
out said war. 
[; The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 18th day of April, 1905. 

George A. & William B. King, esqs., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by James Tanner, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 
, The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

That he is the surviving partner of Christian Schwartz and Leopold Bickart, part- 
ners; that Christian Schwartz and Leopold Bickart were partners doing business at 
Natchez, Miss., at the time hereinafter stated; that Christian Schwartz and Leopold 
Bickart were residents of the State of Mississippi, and did not give any aid or comfort 
to the said rebellion, but were throughout the civil war loyal to the Government of 
the United States. 

That the following property belonging to Christian Schwartz and Leopold Bickart, 
partners, were taken from them in or near Natchez, in the State of Mississippi, on 
or about the 22d day of July, 1863, by Brigadier-General Ransom, of the Seventeenth 
Army Corps, U. S. Army, to wit: 

1,075 head of sheep of the value of |6, 450 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDING OF FACT. 

During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of theUnited 
States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took from Christian Schwartz and 
Leopold Bickart, joint owners, at Natchez, Miss., property as above described. The 
court finds that Leopold Bickart' s share in said property was reasonably worth the 
sum of fifteen hundred dollars ($1,500), for which no payment appears to have been 
made. 

The claim of Christian Schwartz, No. 1235, is remanded to the general docket. 

By the Court. 
Filed May 1, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 8th day of February, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

SUSANNAH SCHWARTZ, EXECUTRIX, ETC. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, Nos. 1235, 3466. Christian Schwartz and Leopold Bickart v. The 

United States.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or 
furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war 
for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that 
Christian Schwartz and Leopold Bickart, the persons alleged to have furnished such 
supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, were loyal 
to the Government of the United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed December 2, 1901. 



190 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case Nos. 1235, 3466. Susannah Schwartz, executrix, Christian 
Schwartz, deceased, member of the firm of Christian Schwartz and Leopold Bickart v. The United 
States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims, House of Representatives, on the 6th day of March, 1888. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 2d day of December, 1901, found that 
the person alleged to have furnislied the supplies or stores, or from whom they were 
alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- 
out said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 2d day of January, 1906. 

George A. & William B. King, esqs., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by James Tanner, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes the following allegations: 

I. That she is the executrix of Christian Schwartz, deceased, a member of the firni 
of Christian Schwartz and Leopold Bickart, her warrant of authority being herewith 
brought into court by the filing of letters testamentary issued to her by the probate 
court for the county of Wayne, in the State of Michigan; that Christian Schwartz 
and Leopold Bickart were partners doing business at Natchez, Miss., at the time 
hereinafter stated; that Christian Schwartz and Leopold Bickart were during the war 
for the suppression of the rebellion residents of the State of Mississippi, and did not 
give any aid or comfort to the said rebellion, but were throughout that war loyal to 
the Government of the United States. 

II. That the following property belonging to Christian Schwartz and Leopold 
Bickart, partners, were taken from them by and for the use of the United States Army 
in Natchez County, in the State of Mississippi, on or about the 22d day of July, 1863, 
by Brigadier-General Ransom, of the Seventeenth Army Corps, U. S. Army, to wit, 
1,075 head of sheep of the value of $6,450. 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDING OF FACTS. 

During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United 
States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army took from Christian Schwartz 
and Leopold Bickart, joint owners, at Natchez, Miss., property as above described, 
the reasonable value of the property so taken which belonged to Christian Schwartz 
being the sum of fifteen hundred dollars ($1,500), for which no payment appears to 
have been made. 

By the Court. 

Filed January 8, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 8th day of February, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

T. M. DAVIDSON, ADMINISTRATOR. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 6088. T. M. Davidson, administrator of Margaret Davidson, 

deceased, v. The United States.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- 
nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for 
the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that the per- 
son alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are 
alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the LTnited States through- 
out said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed February 19, 1900. 



ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 191 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 6088. T. M. Davidson, adftiinistrator of the estate of Margaret 
Davidson, deceased, v. The United Statest] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies, or stores, alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their use dur- 
ing the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by 
the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 6th day of 
September, 1888. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 19th day of FebruarJ^ 1906, found that 
the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or fi'om whom they were 
alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- 
out said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 12th day of November, 1906. 

Meyers & Consaul appeared for claimant and the Attorney-General, by P. M. Ash- 
ford, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and pro- 
tection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations : 

That Margaret Davidson died in 1892; that he was appointed by the chancery 
court of Warren County, Miss., administrator of her estate. 

That she was a citizen of the United States, residing in Warren County, State of 
Mississippi, where she resided during the late war of the rebellion; that at different 
times during said period the United States military forces, by proper authority, took 
from her quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the value of $4,828 and appro- 
priated the same to the use of the United States Army. 

Taken from her plantation in Warren County, Miss., from July 10 to 20, 1863, by the 
commands of General Smith, J. A. Logan, and J. M. Tuttle, all of the army of Maj. 
Gen. U. S. Grant: 

400 bushels corn taken from cribs, at $1 $400 

40 acres corn just matured, taken from field, with fodder, estimated to con- 
tain 100 bushels matured corn : 1, 000 

2 stacks fodder, 2,000 pounds, at $15.50 per hundred weight 30 

12 milch cows taken for beeves, 400 pounds each, at 8 cents per pound 384 

15 head of beef cattle in good condition, for beef, 250 pounds each, at 8 

cents 300 

6 fat oxen, 650 pounds each, at 8 cents 352 

1 lumber wagon 150 

30 head of sheep, at $3.50 per head 105 

3 horses 150 

60 hogs, 100 pounds dressed pork, at 10 cents 600 

500 pounds bacon, at 15 cents ; 75 

200 pounds sugar, at 18 cents 36 

200 pounds coffee, at 20 cents 40 

40 gallons of molasses, at $1 40 

200 pounds lard 40 

1 barrel of flour 15 

40 head geese and 100 chickens 50 

Kitchen furniture taken and used 25 

3 guns, at $30 each 90 

5 gallons of preserves 10 

6 gallons pickles 6 

400 pounds cotton .• 100 

Bed clothing 30 

Taken and used in the field hospital of General Smith's command: 

6,000 feet of lumber, at $30 per thousand 180 

3 houses converted into material and used as lumber and fuel 150 

6,000 fence rails used as fuel— 60 cords wood, at $3 180 

2,000 bricks, at $15 30 

Total 4, 828 



192 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of coun- 
sel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDLNG OF FACT. 

During the war for the suppression of the rebellion there was taken from the claim- 
ant's decedent in ^A^arren County, State of Mississippi, by the military forces of the 
United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, property of the kind and 
character described above, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth 
the sum of two thousand four hundred and fiity dollars ($2,450). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

By the CorRT. 

Filed November 19, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 1st day of December, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

ELIZA CHAMBERS, ADMINISTRATRIX. 

[Court [of Claims. Congressional, No. 3522. Eliza Chambers, administratrix of estate of Royall 
Chambers, deceased, v. The United States.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- 
nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for 
the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Royal 
Chambers (now deceased), the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, 
or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of 
the United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed March 6, 1899. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional ease No. 3522. Eliza Chambers, administratrix of the estate of 
Royall Chambers, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken 
by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late 
war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted to the court by the Committee 
on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 6th day of March, 1888. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 6th day of March, 1899, found that the 
person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged 
to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said 
war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 13th day of February, 1905. 
Messrs. Dudley & Michener appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. 
Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and pro- 
tection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his jDetition makes the following allegations: 

The decedent, Royall Chambers, at the beginning of the war of the rebellion and until 
freed as a result of the war, was a slave belonging to Solomon Chambers, of Yazoo City, 
Miss., and at the time of the taking of the pi'operty, as hereinafter described, was about 
21 years old. For several years prior thereto he had been permitted by his master to 
work for himself, he paying to his master a portion of his earnings. With his first sav- 
ings he bought a'horse and thereafter he bought a cart and harness and engaged in the 
business of cutting and hauling wood to the market at Vicksburg. In this way he 
saved money with which he bought horses and mules, wagon and harness, corn, etc., 
which he possessed and held as his own personal property. 

In the spring of 1864 the soldiers of the United States, under the command of Colonel 
Coates and others, appeared on his premises at different times, and took, carried away, 
and appropriated to their own uses, without compensation to the decedent and without 
his consent, property belonging to the decedent of the kinds, quantities, and values as 
follows: 



AXiLOWAlSrCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 193 

5 mules, worth $150 each |750 

1 horse 150 

1 iron-axle wagon 150 

2 sets mule harness 24 

25 bushels of corn, at |1 25 

Total 1, 099 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

During the war for the suppression of the rebellion, in Yazoo County, State of Mis- 
sissippi, the military forces of the United States by proper authority took property of 
the kind and character above described for the use of the Army from the claimant, the 
reasonable value of which at the time and place of taking was the sum of six hundred 
and seventy dollars ($670), for which no payment appears to have been made. 

By the Court. 

Filed March 20, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 10th day of November, 1905. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

SUSAN R. JONES, ADMINISTRATRIX. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11210. Susan R. Jones, administratrix of the estate of William 
Freeman, deceased, v. The United States.] 

statement of case. 

The following bill was referred to the court February 20, 1903, by resolution of the 
House of Representatives, under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known 
as the Tucker Act: 

"A BILL for the relief of the heirs of William Freeman, deceased. 

"Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the sum of thirteen thousand eight hundred and sixty- 
seven dollars be paid to the administrator of the estate of William Freeman, deceased, 
late of Warren County, Mississippi, for the benefit of the heirs at law of said deceased, 
out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for property taken 
for the use of and used by the Union Army in the county of Warren, State of Missis- 
sippi, in the month of May, eighteen hundred and sixty-three, dming the siege of 
Vicksburg: Provided, That the same is accepted in full as compensation for all prop- 
erty taken, used, purchased, or destroyed by the Union belonging to said William 
Freeman, deceased." 

Susan R. Jones, administratrix of the estate of William Freeman, deceased, appeared 
by her attorney, John S. Dufhe, and filed her petition in the court June 15, 1903, in 
which she makes the following allegations: That she, the administratrix, and her late 
husband, said William Freeman, lived 4 miles from Vicksburg, in Warren County, 
State of Mississippi, during the entire period of the war for the suppression of the 
rebellion; that the said William Freeman was a farmer at such place and time and 
cultivated a farm of 600 acres; had the farm well stocked with necessary horses, cattle, 
hogs, wagons, provisions, etc., necessary to successfully carry on such farm; that said 
Freeman was an active and energetic man and carried on such farm successfully and 
with profit. 

That before the said war he was a decided and uncompromising man, and in favor 
of the Union at all hazards, and opposed to secession; voted against secession, and was 
throughout the entire said war an uncompromising Union man; never gave aid or 
comfort to the enemy. 

That diuing the said war of the rebellion, and a short time before the surrender of 
Vicksburg, the armies of Generals Grant and Sherman infested said Vicksburg, and 
not being able to reach the Federal gunboats, were almost destitute of supplies, and 
being in this condition, they, the said Union Army, under command of said Generals 

H. Rep. 543, 60-1 13 



194 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

Grant and Sherman, took from the said William Freeman a lai^e quantity of quarter- 
master and conmiissary supplies, such as bacon, lard, corn, fodder, oxen, cows, cattle, 
hogs, soap, salt, molasses, sugar, chickens, candles, preserves, mules, horses, mat- 
tresses, hair, quilts, sheets, towels, rails, tables, fencing, wagons, with one bale of 
cotton, all aggregating the value of $13,867. 

The case was brought to' hearing on loyalty and merits on the 30th day of October, 
1905. 

John S. Duffie, esq., appeared for said administratrix, and the Attorney-General, 
by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering briefs and arguments on both 
sides, makes the following 

FINDING OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that William Freeman, claimant's decedent, was 
loyal to the Government of the United States through the war for the suppression of 
the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the 
United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took from claimant's 
decedent in Warren County, State of Mississippi, property of the kind and character 
above described, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the 
sum of four thousand and ten dollars (|4,010), no part of which appears to have been 
paid. 

III. It does not appear that this claim was ever presented to any department of the 
Government prior to its presentation to Congress and its reference to this court by the 
United States Senate, afoi'esaid. It does appear, however, that claimant's decedent 

Eut the claim in the hands of a Mi-. Burwell, a lawyer, to collect in 1863 or 1864, but 
e died some time in the seventies without ha^sdng done anything, so far as is shown, 
to collect the same, and no satisfactory reason appears for the delay in not further 
prosecuting this claim. 

By the Court. 
Filed November 13, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 21st day of December, 1905. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

EMMA JONES AND LEON LEWIS, HEIRS OF EMMA S. LEWIS. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11257. Estate of Emma S. Lewis, deceased, v. The United States.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or 
furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war 
for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that 
Emma S. Lewis, deceased, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or 
stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Govern- 
ment of the United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed January 16, 1905. 

[Coart of Claims. Congressional, No. 11257. Emma Jones and Leon Lewis, sole heirs of Emma S. 
Lewis, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims, House of Representatives, on the 12th day of January, 
1904. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 16th day of January, 1905, found that 
the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were 
alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- 
out said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 1st day of May, 1905. 

Moyers and Consaul, esqs., appeared for claimants, and the Attorney-General, by 
F. W. Collins, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 195 

The claimants in their petition make the following allegations: 
That they are citizens of the United States and the sole heii's of Emma S. Lewis, 
deceased; that during the late civil war said Eijima S. Lewis, the' mother of peti- 
tioners, was a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Hinds, State 
of Mississippi; that during said war the United States military forces, under proper 
authority, took from said decedent and converted to the use of the United States 
Army quartermaster stores and commissary supplies, of the kinds and values below 
stated, to wit: 

8 mules, at |200 each |1, 600 

10 hogs, at $5 each 50 

10 head of cattle, at |15 each... 150 

500 bushels of corn, at $1.50 per bushel 750 

1 wagon 100 

5,000 pounds fodder 100 

1,000 bushels corn, at 11.50 per bushel 1, 500 

Total 4, 250 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDING OP FACT. 

There were taken from the claimant's decedent, in Hinds County, State of Missis- 
sippi, during the war of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States for 
the use of the Army,, stores and supplies of those above described which were then 
and there reasonably worth the sum of one thousand eight hundred and fifteen dol- 
lars ($1,815). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

By the Court. 

Filed May 15, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 17th day of March, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

JOHN M. BASS, ADMINISTRATOR. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional ease No. 9948. John M. Bass, administrator of the estate of William 
O. Moseley, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted to the court by the 
resolution of the' House of Representatives on the 15th clay of February, 1899, under 
the act of March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 23d day of October, 1900. 
Gilbert Moyers, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by P. M. 
Ashford, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

That he is the administrator of the estate of William O. Moseley, deceased, and 
that he is and his decedent was a citizen of the United States, residing in Hinds 
. County, State of Mississippi, where decedent resided during the late war of the rebel- 
lion; that at different times during said period the United States forces, by proper 
authority, took from said decedent quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of 
the value of $16,100, and appropriated the same to the use of the United States Army, 
as follows: 

Taken from decedent's premises on or about the 12th of July, 1863, by the 
Federal forces, while in Jackson, Miss.: 

80 bales of cotton, 450 pounds per bale, at 25 cents $9, 000 

20 mules and 4 horses, at $150 3, 600 

2,500 bushels of corn, at $1 per bushel 2, 500 

20 head of cattle, at $20 per head 400 

3,000 pounds of bacon, at 20 cents per pound 600 

Total 16,100 



196 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

The coui't, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The claimant's decedent, William 0. Moseley, the person alleged to have fur- 
nished said stores and supplies, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken 
was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war for the suppres- 
sion of the rebellion. 

II. There was taken from the claimant's decedent, in Hinds County, State of Mis- 
sissippi, during the war of the rebellion by the military forces of the United States, 
for the use of the Army, property of the kind above described, which at the time and 
place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of four thousand two hundred and 
eighty-five dollars ($4,285), for which no payment appears to have been made. 

No allowance is made for the cotton claimed to have been taken. 

III. The claim was not presented to the commissioners of claims under the act 
of March 3, 1871, and is consequently barred under the provisions of the act of June 
15, 1878 (20 Stat. L., p. 550, sec. 5). No evidence has been offered by the claimant 
under the act of March 3, 1887 (24 Stat. L., p. 505, sec. 14), "bearing upon the ques- 
tion whether there has been delay or laches in presenting such claim or applying for 
such grant, gift, or bounty, and any facts bearing upon the question whether the bar 
of any statute of limitation should be removed or which shall be claimed to excuse 
the claimant lor not Jiavmg resorted to any established regal remedy. ' ' 

By the Court. 
Filed January 21, 1901. 

A true copy. 

Test this 22d day of January, A. D. 1901. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

W. A. MONTGOMERY, ADMINISTRATOR. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 5613. Estate of John Read, deceased, r. The United States.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or 
furnished to the military forces of the United States for theh use during the late war 
for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that 
John Read, deceased, the person alleged to have fm-nished such supplies or stores, 
or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government 
of the United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

FUed April 11, 1904. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 5613. W. A. Montgomery, administrator of the estate of John 
Read, deceased, v. The United States.] 

statement of case. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or fm-nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 6th day of August, 
1888. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 11th day of April, 1904, found that the 
person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were 
alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- 
out said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 27th day of March, 1905. 

Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by P. M. Ash- 
foi'd, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protec- 
tion of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

That he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Hinds, 
State of Mississippi, and is the duly appointed, qualified, and acting administrator 
of the estate of John Read, deceased; that during the late civil war said decedent 
was a citizen of the United States, residing in said county and State; that during 



ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. 197 

said war the United States military forces, unde» proper authority, took from said 
decedent and converted to the use of the United States Army quartermaster stores 
and commissary supplies of the kinds and values below stated, to wit: 
12 mules, at $150 each ^^'Ho 

} Jo^^e 100 

1 horse r,fx 

40 sheep, at $2 each °" 

14 oxen, at $25 each 2^" 

30 cows, heifers, and yearlings, at $15 each ^^" 

Total 2,930 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OP FACT. 

There were taken from claimant's decedent in Hinds County, State of Mississippi, 
during the war of the rebellion by the military forces of the United States, for the use 
of the Army, stores and supplies of the kinds described m the petition, which at 
the time and place of taking were reasonably worth the sum of two thousand one 
hundred and sixty dollars ($2,160), for which no payment appears to have been made. 

By the Court. - 

Filed April 10, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 6th day of December, 1905. 

Pgg^L 1 John Randolph, 

•- ■-' Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

T. A. NORRIS, ADMINISTRATOR OF N. M. ALDRIDGE. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 9385. N. M. Aldridge v. The United States.] 

This case being a claim for supplies and stores alleged to have been taken by or 

furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the la-te war 

for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary mqunry, hnds that 

N M Aldridge, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from 

whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the 

ijnited States tliroughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed February 9, 1904. 

rCourt of Claims. Congressional, No. 9385. T. A. Norris, administrator of estate of N. M. Aldridge , 
deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores, alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for thenr use durmg 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 24th day of Apni, 

On a preliminary inquiry, the court, on the 9th day of February, 1904, found that 
the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were 
alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- 
out said war. . 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 8th day of April, 1907. _ 

Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Fhilip M. 
Ashford, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations : . , . c,^ . 

That he is a citizen of the United States, residing in the county of Tishomingo, State 
of Mississippi; that he is the duly appointed, qualified, and acting administrator of 
estate of N. M. Aldridge, deceased, late of said county and State. 



198 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

That during the late civil war said N. M. Aldridge was a citizen of the United States, 
residing in said county and State; that during said war the United States military- 
forces, under proper authority, took from said decedent and converted to the use of the 
Army quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the kinds and values below 
stated, to wit : 

7,500 pounds pork, at 10 cents per pound |750 

22 sheep, .at $2.50 each 55 

280 bushels corn, at $1 per bushel 280 

1 mule 200 

1 mare 150 

Total 1, 445 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OP FACT. 

I. During the late civil war there were taken from the petitioner's decedent, N. M, 
Aldridge, by United States military forces, under proper authority, for use of the 
Army, quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the kinds mentioned in the 
petition, which at the time and place of taking were reasonably worth the sum of nine 
hundred and eighty dollars ($980). 

No payment appears to have been made for said property or any part thereof. 

By the Court. 
Filed April 22,fl907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 19th day of December, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

J. D. ROBINSON, ADMINISTRATOR. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11246. J. D. Robinson, administrator of the estate of 
Melchisedec Robinson, deceased, v. The United States.]. 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

On December 6, 1901, House bill No. 4199 was introduced in the House of Repre- 
sentatives of the United States for the relief of the heirs of Melchisedec Robinson, 
deceased. By resolution of the House of Representatives said bill, with accompany- 
ing papers, was transmitted to this court on February 20, 1903, for findings of fact, 
in accordance with the terms of section 14 of the act approved March 3, 1887, and 
commonly known as the Tucker Act. 

Said bill so referred reads as follows, to wit: 

"A BILL for the relief of the heirs of Melchisedec Robinson, deceased. 

"Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, directed 
to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the heirs of 
Melchisedec Robinson, deceased, late of Benton County, Mississippi, the sum of 
three thousand one hundred and seventy dollars, in full compensation for stores and 
supplies taken and used by the Federal Army during the late civil wai\" 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 21st day of November, 
A. D. 1905. 

Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Malcolm 
A. Coles, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations, to wit: 

That he is a citizen of the United States, residing in the county of Benton, State 
of Mississippi, and is the duly appointed, qualified, and acting administrator of the 
estate of Melchisedec Robinson, deceased, late of said county and State: that during 
the late civil war said decedent was a citizen of the United States, residing near the 
town of Lamar and in the then county of Marshall (now county of Bent6n), State of 
Mississippi; that at different times during said war the United States military forces, 
by proper authority, took from said decedent quartermaster stores and commissary 
supplies of the kinds and values below stated, to wit: 



AliLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAI]N^S. 199 



1 fine mare 

20 beef cattle, at $25 500 

50 fat hogs, at 175 pounds each, 8,750 pounds, at 10 centsper pound 875 

36 sheep, at $5 each 180 

400 pounds bacon, at 25 cents per pound 100 

3 mules, at $200 each 600 

50 bushels corn, at $1 per bushel .----. ^^ 

60 cords of wood, at $3 per cord '. 180 

600 pounds fodder, at $2 per hundredweight 12 

2 medium mules, at $200 each 400 

60 bushels of corn, at $1 per bushel 60 

800 pounds bacon, at 25 cents per pound 75 

5 beef cattle, at $25 each 125 

400 pounds pork, at 10 cents per pound 40 

Total 3,497 

That in 1865 said decedent prepared for presentation to the Quartermaster-General 
and to the Commissary-General a claim for compensation for said stores and supplies, 
but said claim was not presented to said officers, as they had no jurisdiction over 
the same, as the claim arose in the State of Mississippi; that thereafter said claim was 
placed in the hands of attorneys for presentation to the Southern Claims Commission 
under the act of March 3, 1871, but that by neglect of said attorneys and without the 
knowledge of said decedent said attorneys failed to file the claim of said decedent 
within the time limited by law; that said claim was presented to the Congress of the 
United States as early as 1877. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. Claimant's decedent, Melchisedec Robinson, was during the late civil war a 
citizen of the United States, residing in the county of Marshall, State of Mississippi, 
and remained throughout said war loyal to the Government of the United States. 

II. During said war the United States military forces, under proper authority, 
took from claimant's decedent quartermaster's stores and commissary supplies, for the 
use of the United States Army, of the kinds mentioned in the petition, which at the 
time and place of taking were reasonably worth the sum of fifteen hundred and thirty- 
one dollars ($1,531). 

No payment appears to have been made for said property or any part thereof. 

By the Court. 
Filed December 4, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 27th day of December, 1905. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

. Assistant Clerk Court of Claims 

G. D. ABLE, ADMINISTRATOR. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 4110. Catherine .J. Rutherford v. The United 

States.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by 
or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary 
inquiry, finds that Catherine J. Rutherford, the person alleged to have furnished 
such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, 
was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 
Filed April 18, 1905. 



200 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 4110. G. D. Able, administrator of the estate 
of Catherine J. Itutherford, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in tlie above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have 
been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for 
their use during the late vrar for the suppression of the rebellion was trans- 
mitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Repre- 
sentatives on the 6th day of March, 1888. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 18th day of April, 1905, found 
that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores or from whom 
they were alleged to have been taken was loyal to the Government of the 
United States throughout said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 17th day of October, 
1906. 

Moyers and Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
John Q. Thompson, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations : 

That he is a citizen of the United States, residing in the county of Yalo- 
busha, State of Mississippi ; that he is the duly appointed, qualified, and acting 
administrator of the estate of Catherine J. Rutherford, deceased, late of the 
county of Panola, State of Mississippi; that during the late civil war said 
Catherine J. Rutherford was a citizen of the United States, residing in said 
county of Panola, State of Mississippi ; that during said war the United States 
military forces, under proper authority, took from said decedent and converted 
to the use of the United States Army quartermaster stores and commissary 
supplies of the kinds and values below stated, to wit : 

2 mules, at $150 each $300. 00 

2 horses, at $150 each 300.00 

150 bushels of corn, at $1 per bushel 150. 00 

500 bundles of fodder 5. 00 

1, 000 pounds bacon, at 25 cents per pound 250. 00 

4 saddles 50. 00 

50 pounds of lard, at 25 cents per pound 12. 50 

Clothing and bedding 100. 00 

Total 1, 167. 50 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDING OF FACTS. 

I. During the late civil war the United States military forces, under proper 
authority, took from claimant's decedent, in Panola County, Miss., said Cather- 
ine J. Rutherford, quartermaster stores and commissary supplies, which at the 
time and place of taking were reasonably worth the sum of six hundred and 
twenty dollars ($620). 

No payment appears to have been made on account of the taking of said 
property or any part thereof. 

By THE Court. 

Filed October 22, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 27th day of December, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

MINOR SAUNDERS. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12273. Minor Saunders v. The United States.] 

statement of case. 

' On March 31, 1906, House bill No. 7992, reading as follows, was referred to 
this court by resolution of the House of Representatives, for findings of fact 
under the terms of section 14 of the act approved March 3, 1887, and commonly 
known as the Tucker Act : 



ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. 201 

" A BILL For the relief of Minor Saunders. 

" Be it enacted ty the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assemUed, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, to Minor Saunders, 
of Benton County, Mississippi, the sum of three hundred dollars, in full com- 
pensation for stores, supplies, and property taken for the use of and used by 
the Federal forces durtag the late civil war." 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 29th day 
of October, 1906. 

Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
Charles F. Kincheloe, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant, in his petition, makes the following allegations : 

That he is a colored man and a citizen of the United States, and a resident 
of the county of Benton, State of Mississippi ; that during the late civil war he 
was a slave until freed by the emancipation proclamation ; that after becoming 
free he became the owner of certain property, consisting of mules, oxen, and a 
wagon, and made a crop of corn for himself ; that in the fall of 1864 the United 
States military forces, under proper authority, took from petitioner, for the use 
of the United States Army, quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the 
kinds and values below stated: 

Taken in fall of 1864, by troops under command of General Smith, near 
Lamar, Marshall County, Miss. : 

2 mules $150 

1 ox team and wagon 60 

16 bushels of corn 16 

Total 226 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of coimsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The claimant is a colored man, and was during the late war for the sup- 
pression of the rebellion a slave until freed by the emancipation proclamation, 
and remained throughout said war loyal to the Government of the United States. 

II. After the issuance of said emancipation proclamation claimant was per- 
mitted by his former owner to work for himself, and became the owner of some 
property of the kinds mentioned in the petition. During said war the United 
States military forces, under proper authority, took from claimant, for the use 
of the Army, quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the kinds de- 
scribed in the petition, which at the time and place of taking were reasonably 
worth the sum of one hundred and sixty dollars ($160), for which no payment 
appears to have been made. 

III. This claim was not presented to the Southern Claims Commission or to 
any other commission or tribunal until its presentation to Congress and refer- 
ence to this court as aforesaid; and no facts are established by the evidence 
tending to excuse the claimant for not having sooner presented the claim. 

By THE Court. 
Filed November 12, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 4th day of December, 1906. 

fsEAL.1 John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

FANNIE SOLARI. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case, No. 9942. Fannie Solari, heir of Emanuel M, 
Solari, deceased, v. The United States.] 

statement of case. 

The claim in the above entitled case for stores or supplies alleged to have 
been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their 
use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted to 



202 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on 
March 2, 1891, for a finding of facts under the Bowman Act. It was later trans- 
mitted to the court by resolution of the House of Representatives on February 
12, 1899, for a finding of facts under the provisions of the Tucker Act. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 12th day of 
December, 1904. 

Moyers & Consaul appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
John Q. Thompson, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes the following allegations, to wit : 

That she is a daughter and heir of Emanuel M. Solari, deceased, who during 
the late civil war was a citizen of the United States residing in Claiborne 
County, State of Mississippi ; that during said war the United States military 
forces, acting under proper authority, took from said Emanuel M. Solari and 
converted to the use of the United States Army quartermaster stores and com- 
missary supplies of the kinds and values below stated, to wit : 

3 tons of hay, at $20 each $60. 00 

300 bushels of corn, at $1 per bushel 300. 00 

405 bushels of oats, at 50 cents per bushel . 202. 50 

3,750 pounds of bran, at $1 per hundredweight 37. 50 

20 bushels of potatoes 20.00 

30 bushels of onions 60.00 

10 barrels of fiour, at $11 per barrel 110. 00 

8 barrels of sugar (brown), at $25 each 200.00 

3 barrels of sugar (white), at $30 each 90.00 

80 gallons of molasses, at 75 cents per gallon 60.00 

200 pounds of tobacco, at $1 per pound 200. 00 

240 pounds of candles 40.00 

7 boxes of soap 37. 80 

1 dozen linen and cotton sheets 12.00 

6 good cows and calves 180.00 

1 fine horse 150.00 

15 large hogs, 200 pounds each 300.00 

21 medium hogs 210.00 

1 cart 50. 00 

2 sets of harness 20.00 

Total 2, 339. 80 

That the interest of petitioner in the estate of her father, said Emanuel M. 
Solari, is an undivided one-eighth interest and that her interest in this claim 
amounts to $292.47. 

That this claim was first presented by petition to Congress about 1890. 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDING OF FACT. 

I. The claimant's decedent, Emanuel M. Scflari, was loyal to the Govern- 
ment of the United States during the war for the suppression of the rebellion. 

II. During said war the United States military forces, by proper authority, 
took from said Emanuel M. Solari, in Claiborne County, Miss., property of the 
kind and character above described. The interest of the claimant herein, 
Fannie Solari, in the estate of Emanuel M. Solari, her father, was an undivided 
one-eighth, and the court finds said interest to be the sum of two hundred and 
nineteen dollars ($219), for which no payment appears to have been made. 

III. The claim was not presented to any department or otficer of the Govern- 
ment prior to its presentation to Congress in the year 1S90, and the subsequent 
reference to this court. The claimant's decedent died in the year 1863 ; claim- 
ant herein was then 16 years of age. 

By the Court. 
Filed December 22, 1904. 

A true copy. 

Test this 5th day of January, 1905. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWAliTCE OF CEETAIIST CLAIMS. 203 

WIIiEY W. TIPTON. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional No. 5704. Wiley W. Tipton v. The United States.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by 
or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the 
late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary in- 
quiry, finds that Wiley W. Tipton, the person alleged to have furnished such 
supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was 
loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed February 9, 1904. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional Case No. 5704. Wiley W. Tipton v. The United 

States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies, or stores, alleged to have 
been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their 
use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted 
to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives 
on the 6th day of August, 189S. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 9th day of February, 1904, found 
that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom 
they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the 
United States throughout said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 19th day of March, 
1906. 

Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
Charles F. Kincheloe, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations : 

That he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of 
Attala, State of Mississippi ; that during the late civil war he was a resident of 
said county and State; that during said war the United States military forces, 
under proper authority, took from petitioner for the use of the Army quarter- 
master stores of the kinds and values below stated, to wit : 

Taken in Washington County, Mississippi, in October, 1864, by troops attached 
to EUett's Marine Brigade: 

1 roan mare mule $175. 00 

1 bay mare mule , 175.00 

2 sorrel horse mules 375. 00 

1 black horse mule 150. 00 

Total 950. 00 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel upon both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. There was taken from the claimant, Wiley W. Tipton, in Attala County, 
State of Mississippi, during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the 
military forces of the United States, for the use of the Army, property as above 
described, which at the time and place was reasonably worth the sum of six 
hundred dollars ($600). 

It does not appear that any payment has been made for any part thereof. 

By the Court. 

Filed March 26, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 10th day of May, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



204 AULiOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

BETTIE B. WILLIS, ADMINISTRATRIX OF JOEL H. WILLIS. 

t 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 1932. Estate of Joel H. Willis, deceased, v. The 

United States.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by 
or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary 
inquiry, finds that Joel H. Willis, deceased, the person alleged to have furnished 
such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, 
was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. 

By the Coukt. 

Filed February 19, 1906. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 1932. Bettie B. Willis, administratrix of Joel 

H. Willis. V. The United States.] 

STATEJIENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have 
been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their 
use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted to 
the court by the Committee on War Claims on the 4th day of March, 18S7. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 3d day of December, 1891, found 
that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom 
they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the 
United States throughout said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 9th day of April, 1907. 
Messrs. Geo. A. & Wm. B. King appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-Gen- 
eral, by P. M. Ashford, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared 
for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes the following allegations : 

That she is the administratrix of Joel H. Willis, deceased, appointed on the 
15th day of July, 1870, by the chancery court in and. for the county of Warren 
and State of Mississippi, her warrant of authority being filed in case No. 3186, 
general jurisdiction in this court ; that said decedent was during the late war a 
resident of the State of Mississippi, and did not give any aid or comfort to the 
said rebellion, and was throughout that war loyal to the Government of the 
United States. 

That the following property belonging to Joel H. Willis was taken from him 
by the United States Army and used by the said Army, the date, place, and 
command being particularly stated below : 

In Warren County, in the State of Mississippi, on or about May and June, 
1862, by troops under command of Maj. Gen. U. S. Grant, to wit: 

1. 2 blooded mares, at $500 each $1, 000 

2. 3 horses, at $200 each 600 

3. 45 mules, at $200 each 9,000 

4. 250 hogs, weighing 30,500 pounds, at 10 cents per pound 3, 050 

. 5. lis sheep, at $8 944 

6. 15.500 pounds bacon, at 20 cents per pound 3,100 

7. 10,400 bushels of corn, at $1.50 per bushel 15, 600 

8. 1,600 gallons molasses, at $1.25 per gallon 2. 000 

9. 1,500 pounds of sugar, at 17 cents per pound 255 

10. 65 bushels of salt, at $1 per bushel 65 

11. 16 work oxen, at $50 800 

12. 10 young steers, 3 years old, at'$25 each 250 

13. 73 calves (yearlings and 2 years old), at $15 1. 095 

14. SO bales of fodder, at $5 400 

15. 41 cows, at $30 1,230 

Total 39,389 

That a claim for said property was presented to the Southern Claims Commis- 
sion, the items of said claim being as heretofore stated. 

Said claim was not allowed by said tribunal, the ground for said action 
being that it was not considered that tlie claimant was loyal. 



AJLLOWANCE OP CEKTAHsT CLAIMS. 205 

That the said clauii has been presented to the Forty-nmth Congress, and was 
by the House of Representatives of the said Forty -ninth Congress referred to 
the Committee on War Claims of said House, by which committee it was on 
the 4th day of March, 1S87, referred to this Court for a finding of the facts in 
accordance with section one of an act approved March 3, 1883, entitled "An 
act to afford assistance and relief to Congress and the Executive Departments 
in the investigation of claims and demands against the Government." 

That nx) other action than as aforesaid has been had on this claim in Congress 
or by any of the Departments; that the claimant is the sole owner of this claim 
and the only person interested therein ; that no assignment or transfer of this 
claim, or of any pai't thereof or interest therein, has been made ; that the claim- 
ant is justly entitled to the amount herein claimed from the United States, after 
allowing all just credits and offsets ; that the claimant is a citizen of the United 
States. And the claimant believes the facts as stated in this petition to be 
true. 

And the claimant prays a finding of the facts in accordance with the afore- 
said act. 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the arguments and briefs 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS or FACT. 

There was taken from the claimant's decedent in Warren County, State of 
Mississippi, during the late civil war by the military forces of the United States 
tor the use of the Army, property of the kind and character above described, 
which at the time and place of taking was reasouablv worth the sum of six 
thousand and forty dollars ($6,040.00). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

By the Court. 

Filed April 22, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 29th day of November, 1907. 

[seal.] , John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

JOHN WOOD. 

tCourt of Claims. John Wood v. The United States. Congressional, No. 12761.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or 
furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the 
late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary in- 
quiry, finds that John Wood, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies 
or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to 
the Government of the United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed December 2, 1907. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional ease No. 12761. John Wood v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have 
been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their 
use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted 
to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives 
on the 12th day of February, 1907. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 2d day of December, 1907, found 
that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom 
they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the 
United States throughout said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 7th day of January, 
1908. 

Francis L. Neubeck, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by Clark McKercher, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 



206 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations : 
The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the Tth day of January, 
State of Kentucky, being formerly a resident of Tishomingo County, State of 
Mississippi, where he resided during the late war of the rebellion until 1S63 
or 1864 ; that at different times during said period the United States forces, by 
proper authority, took from petitioner quartermaster stores and commissary 
supplies of the value of $1,400 and appropriated the same to the use of the 
United States Army, as follows : 

Taken on or about May 20, 1862, by troops under General Buell : 

1 sorrel horse $125 

Taken on or about March 10, 1863, by troops under General Dodge : 

1 black horse 200 

1 roan horse : 150 

1 claybank horse 150 

2 mules 300 

Taken on or about October 6, 1864, by troops under General Osterhaus : 

500 bushels of corn 375 

Taken on or about October 12, 1863. by troops under General Wood, be- 
ing part of General Buell's army : 

70 large trees, used to build Bear Creek Bridge 100 

Total 1, 400 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDING OF FACT. 

During the late civil war the military forces of the United States, by proper 
authority for the use of the Army, took from claimant in Tishomingo County, 
State of Mississippi, property of the kind and character described in the petition, 
which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of eight 
hundred and eighty dollars ($880), no part of which appears to have been paid. 

By the Court. 

Filed .January 13, 1908. 

A true copy. 

Test this 18th day of January, 1908. 

[seal.] .John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

MISSOURI. 
JOHN BAGG. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 1.2169-10. .John Bagg v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 27th day of 
March, 1906. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 22d day 
of April, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker and Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by George M. Anderson, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, 
appeared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United 
States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of 
Adair, in the State of Missouri. 

2. That he, being the first sergeant of Company C, One hiuidred and four- 
teenth Regiment of New York Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or 
commissioned by the governor of the Stnto of New York ;is second lieutenant 
thereof on September 3, 1863, and that from and after said date he assumed 
and pei'formed all the duties of his said grade until November .30, 1864, when 
he was mustered in as such: said regiment was continuously below the 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 207 

minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and 
no other, he was refused muster and recognition in the grade of second lieuten- 
ant during said period. 

3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allow- 
ances of a first sergeant, althovigh he was in the continuous performance of the 
duties of second lieutenant. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments, and upon 
other evidence, and upon briefs and arguments of counsel, the court makes 
the following 

FINDINGS 01* FACT. 

1. John Bagg, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and 
resident in the county of Adair, in the State of Missouri. 

2. On September 3, 1864, the said John Bagg was first sergeant of Company 
C, One hundred and fourteenth Regiment New York Volunteer Infantry. On 
that date and until he was mustered into the service — to wit, on November 30, 
1864 — the same was and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed 
by General Order No. 182 of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying 
into efi'ect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., 
p. 734). 

The second lieutenant of said Company C, One hundred and fourteenth Regi- 
ment New York Volunteer Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service 
in said grade, the duties of second lieutenant devolved upon this claimant, who 
from November 2, 1863, assumed and performed all the duties of second lieu- 
tenant of said Company C, One hundred and fourteenth Regiment New York 
Volunteer Infantry. 

The governor of the State of New York also issued to this claimant a com- 
mission as second lieutenant. Company C, One hundred and fourteenth Regi- 
ment New York Volunteer Infantry. 

3. On the said November 2, 1863, the mustering officer then and thereafter 
refused to muster this claimant as second lieutenant of said Company C, One 
hundred and fourteenth Regiment, New York Volunteer Infantry, solely be- 
cause his command was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although 
he continued to perform the duties of second lieutenant until he was mustered 
into the service as first lieutenant November 30, 1864. 

4. During the period aforesaid — to wit, from November 2, 1863, to November 
29, 1864 — this claimant employed one servant, not enlisted. 

5. During said period this claimant did not draw rations from the Govern- 
ment. 

6. If the said John Bagg should be deemed second lieutenant of Company C, 
One hundred and fourteenth Regiment New York Volunteer Infantry, and 
entitled to the pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances 
as a first sergeant, which he has received, and that of a second lieutenant, to 
which he would have been entitled had he been mustered for the period from 
November 2, 1863, to November 29, 1864, would amount to $922.90 (nine hun- 
dred and twenty -two dollars -and ninety cents), as reported by the Auditor for 
the War Department, including short payment, $2.35 tax, erroneously deducted, 
and a short payment of $4.76. 

By the Court. 
Filed April 22, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 24th day of April, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

JOSEPH C. BLACK. 

■ [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 7627. Joseph C. Black v. The United States.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or 
furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late 
war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, 
finds that Joseph C. Black, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or 
stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the 
Government of the United States throughout said war. 

By the Coubt. 

Filed May 13, 1901. 



208 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

[Court of Claims. Congi-essional case No. 7627. Joseph C. Black v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies, or stores, alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use 
during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted to the 
court by the Committee on War Claims, House of Representatives, on the twenty- 
third day of April, 1890. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the thirteenth day of May, 1901, found 
that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom 
they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United 
States throughout said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the nineteenth day of 
December, 1904. George A. and William B. King, esqs., appeared for claimant, 
and the Attorney-General, by Charles F. Kincheloe, esq., his assistant, and under 
his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the 
United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations : 

1. That he was during the civil war a resident of the State of Missouri and 
did not give any aid or comfort to the said rebellion, but was throughout that 
war loyal to the Government of the United States. 

2. That the following property belonging to said claimant was taken from him 
by the United States Army and used by the said Army, the date, place, and com- 
mand being particularly stated below. 

In Barry County, State of Missouri, on or about the 15th day of December, 
1862, by the forces of the United States, namely, the command under General 
Totten, to wit: 

440 bushels of corn, at 50 cents per bushel $220.00 

450 dozen bundles of wheat, 3 dozen to a bushel 225. 00 

Total - - 445. 00 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. There was taken from the claimant, in Barry County, State of Missouri, 
during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces of 
the United States, property of the kind above described, which at the time was 
reasonably worth the sum of two hundred and thirty-five dollars ($235), for 
which no payment appears to ha^e been made. 

By THE Court. 

Filed December 22, 1904. 

A true copy. 

Test this 29th day of December, 1904. 

[SEAL.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

WILLIAM R. BOTSE, HEIR OF STERLING M. BOYSE. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 8222. Estate of Sterling M. Boyse v. The United 

States.] 

This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by 
or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the 
late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary in- 
quiry, finds that Sterling M. Boyse, deceased, the person alleged to have fur- 
nished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been 
taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 
Filed March 26, 1906. 



ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 209 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case Xo. 8222. William R. Boyse, heir of Sterling 
Boyse, deceased, r. The L'nited States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-eutitled case, for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use 
during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the 
court by the Committee on War Claims on the 2d day of March, 1S91. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 26th day of March, 1906, found that 
the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they 
were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United 
States throughout said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 21st day of October, 
1907. 

Messrs. George A. »& Wm. B. King appeared for claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by Malcolm A. Coles, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, ap- 
peared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations : 

1. That he is the son of Sterling M. Boyse, deceased. 

2. That the following property belonging to Sterling M. Boyse was taken from 
him by the United States Army, the date, place, and command being particu- 
larly stated below : 

In Cole County, in the State of Missouri, on or about the 5th day of Octobei*, 
1864, by the forces of the United States, namely, the First, Fourth, and Sev- 
enth Regiments Missouri State Militia Cavalry Volunteers, under Brig. Gen, 
E. B. Brown, to wit : 

1. 300 bushels of corn, at $1.25 per bushel $375.00 

2. 200 shocks fodder, at 60 cents per shock 120. 00 

3. 2,400 poimds of hay, at $1 per 100 poimds 24.00 

Total 519. 00 

3. That a claim for said pi-operty was presented to the Quartermaster-General 
of the United States Army, the items of said claim being as aforestated. 

Said claim was not allowed by said tribunal, the ground for said action being 
that it was not considered that the facts had been satisfactorily established. 

4. That the said claim has been pi-esented to the Fifty-first Congress and was 
by the House of Representatives of the said Fifty-first Congress referred to the 
Committee on War Claims of said House, by which committee it was on the 2d 
day of March, 1891, referred to this court for a finding of the facts in accord- 
ance with section 1 of an act approved March 8, 1883, entitled "An act to afford 
assistance and relief to Congress and the Executive Departments in the investi- 
gation of claims and demands against the Government." 

The court upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and argument 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDING OF FACT. 

During the civil war the military forces of the United States by proper author- 
ity for the use of the Army took from the claimant's decedent in Cole County, 
State of Missouri, property of the kind and character described above, which at 
the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of three hundred 
and sixty-five dollars ($365). 

jVo payment appears to have been made therefor. 

By the Court. 

Filed October 28, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 16th day of January, 1908. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

H. Rep. 543, 60-1 14 



210 ALLOWANCE OF GERTAIlSr CLAIMS. 

HEIRS OF ALEXANDER BRADSHAW. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11235. Heirs of Alexander Bradshaw v. Tli9 

United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

On January 16, 1903, the House of Representatives by a resolution referred 
the following bill to the Court of Claims, under the act of March 3, 1887, known 
as the Tucker Act : 

"A BILL For the relief of the heirs of Alexander Bradshaw. 

"Be it enacted hy the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and .he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay to the heirs of Alexander 
Bradshaw the sum of thirteen thousand three hundred and sixty-eight dollars, 
out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, in full satisfac- 
tion for his property taken for the military service of the United States in 
eighteen hundred and sixty-three, in Cass County, Missouri, by United States 
troops under the command of Colonel D. R. Anthony, Colonel James Lane, 
Colonel Jamison, and Colonel R. S. Judy." 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the ISth day of 
December, A. D. 1906. 

Ralston & Siddous appeared for claimants, and the Attorney-General, by F. 
DeC. Faust, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant, Susan J. McLaughlin, appeared and filed her petition herein, 
in which she makes substantially the following allegations : 

That Alexander Bradshaw, now deceased, was, during the civil war, a farmer 
and resided throughout said war on his farm near Pleasant Hill, Cass County, 
State of Missouri. Throughout said war he was loyal to the Government of the 
United States and rendered no aid or assistance to the Confederacy. 

That during the civil war at various times stated, commands of the United 
States Army took from said decedent for the use of the Army the following 
stores and supplies : 

(By Gen. James H. Lane, in October, 1861 :) 

1 wagon $125 

6 work mules 1, 200 

Harness 40 

Blankets . 50 

2 mares 600 

1 horse 80 

Saddle 20 

1 fine-blooded horse 1, 000 

Brood mare 300 

(Taken by Seventh Kansas Cavalry, December, 1861, near Lone Jack, 
Mo.:) 

2 mules 450 

2 mares r 300 

Wagon and harness 60 

(Taken by Col. C. J. Jennison, Seventh Kansas Cavalry, January, 
1862:) 

4 horses 500 

1 voke of oxen 150 

1 mule 100 

1 horse 125 

(Taken by Capt. R. J. Judy, January, 1863:) 

1 horse 125 

1 mule 100 

1 yoke of oxen 125 



ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 211 

(Taken by Captain Coleman, fall of 1863:) 

2,700 fence rails $250 

1,125 bushels of corn 1, 125 

4 acres of timber 200 

7 tons of hay . 145 

1 stove 30 

150 bushels of corn 150 

Furniture 200 

Turkeys ^ ^ 57 

Chickens 25 

Log house, barn, frame house 1, 600 

Fence rails 700 

Carriage 325 

Hogs ; 800 

Bacon 600 

800 bushels of corn 800 

5 tons of hay 100 

(Taken by Captain Judy, January 9, 1863, for use of enrolled militia 
and destitute Union families : ) 
Cash 65 

Total 12,672 

That receipts were given for most of said property, which receipts were stolen 
by raiders in the latter part of the year 1863, so that claimant has, at this time, 
only receipts for a horse, mule, and yoke of oxen, taken January 1, 1868, and 
for $65, collected on January 9, 1863. 

That said Alexander Bradshaw died intestate, at Kansas City, Mo., on March 
19, 1897, leaving surviving him as his sole heirs his widow, Jane F. Bradshaw, 
and three children, to wit, James B. Bradshaw, Lucius F. Bradshaw, and 
Susan J. McLaughlin. 

That said decedent never presented this claim to any of the Departments of 
. Government ; that bills for the relief of claimants were introduced in the House 
of Representatives in the Fifty-fifth, Fifty-sixth, and Fifty-seventh Congresses. 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the arguments and briefs 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

■ FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. During the civil war the claimant's decedent, Alexander Bradshaw, was 
loyal to the Government of the United States. 

II. During the said war the military forces of the United States, by proper 
authority for the use of the Army, took from claimant's decedent property, as 
above described, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth 
the sum of four hundred and twenty dollars ($420), for which no payment ap- 
pears to have been made. 

III. The said Alexander Bradshaw died intestate, leaving as his sole heirs at 
law and next of kin, a widow, Jane F. Bradshaw, and the following children : 
Lucius M. Bradshaw, James E. Bradshaw, and Susan J. McLaughlin. 

IV. The claim was never presented to any Department or officer of the Gov- 
ernment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court as 
aforesaid. The claimant has testified, however, that about 1874 or 1875 he 
placed his claim in the hands of an attorney, who subsequently died. 

By the Court. 
Filed December 24, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 16th day of January, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



212 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

NANNIE, OSCAR W., JOHN R., AND EMMA COGSWELL, HEIRS OF 

O. H. COGSWELL. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11237. Mrs. Nannie Cogswell, Oscar W. Cogs- 
well, John R. Cogswell, and Emma Cogswell, heirs of O. H. Cogswell, deceased v. The 
United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

On January 6, 1903, House bill No. 16417 was iutroduced in the House of 
Representatives, which said bill reads as follows : 

" A BILL For the relief of the heirs of O. H. Cogswell. 

" Be it enacted hy the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress asseniNed, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay to the heirs of O. H. Cogs- 
well, deceased, the sum of five thousand dollars, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, in full satisfaction for goods and mer- 
chandise of said O. H. Cogswell, taken at Independence, Missouri, in August, 
eighteen hundred and sixty-two, for the use of the Sixteenth Regiment Kansas 
Infantry, in the service of the United States, under command of Lieutenant- 
Colonel John S. Burris." 

On February 20, 1903, said bill was referred to this court by resolution of the 
House of Representatives for findings of fact, in accordance with the provisions 
of section 14 of the act approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing upon loyalty and merits on the 19th day 
of February, 1907. 

Moyers & Cousaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by A. C. 
Campbell, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimants in their petition make the following allegations : 

That they are citizens of the United States and residents of the city of In- 
dependence, county of Jackson, State of Missouri ; that said Nannie B. Cogs- 
well is the widow of O. H. Cogswell, deceased ; that Oscar W. Cogswell, John 
R. Cogswell, and Emma Cogswell are the only children of said O. H. Cogswell, 
deceased; petitioners being the only heirs of said decedent; that during the 
late civil war said O. H. Cogswell was a citizen of the United States, residing 
in the county of Jackson, State of Missouri; that during said war there were 
taken from said decedent, by United States military forcees, under proper 
authority, quartermaster stores and conunissarj^. supplies of the value of not 
less than $5,000, as follows, to wit : 

Taken in August, 1862, by troops under command of Lieut. Col. John T. 
Burris, Tenth Kansas Mounted Infantry, at Independence, Jackson 
County, Mo., clothing, boots, shoes, hats, carpets, dry goods, and gro- 
ceries $5,000 

That said decedent received a voucher for said goods and placed the same in 
the hands of an attorney for the purpose of filing a claim against the Govern- 
ment; that said papers were lost by said attorney and that decedent made no 
claim thereafter by reason of the loss of said voucher. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel upon both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears that claimants' decedent, O. H. Cogswell, was throughout the 
late civil war a resident of the county of Jackson, State of Missouri, and that 
he remained loyal to the United States Government throughout said war. 

II. During said war, to wit, in August, 1862, a command of United States 
troops, under command of Col. John T. Burris, Tenth Kansas Mounted Infan- 
try, entered the town of Independence, Mo., and remained there about twenty- 
four hours. While camped at that place said troops entered the store of claim- 
ants' decedent and took and carried away and appropriated to the use of said 
troops various goods belonging to said O. H. Cogswell, and consisting of boots, 
shoes, clothing, hats, groceries, carpets, which was cut up and used as saddle 
blankets, and other merchandise of the value of sixteen hundred dollars 
($1,000) at the time and place of taking. 



ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 213 

III. It appears from the evidence that the claimant, Mrs, Nannie Cogswell, 
is the widow of said O. H. Cogswell, deceased, and that the claimants, Oscar 
W. Cogswell, John R. Cogswell, and Emma Cogswell, are the only children of 
said decedent, the petitioners being the heirs at law of said decedent. 

IV. The claim herein was never presented to any Department of the Gov- 
ernment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this conrt under 
the provisions of the act of March 3, 1887, as hereinbefore mentioned, and no 
reason is given why such claim was not previously presented to some Depart- 
ment of the Government. The evidence tends to prove that the claimant did 
present a claim to the Quartermaster-General for other property than that em- 
braced in the claim herein and that the same was allowed and iJaid. 

By the Court. 
Filed February 25, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 7th day of January, A. D. 1908. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

JOPIN P. DUKE. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10450. John P. Duke v. The United States.] 

This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or 
furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the 
late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary in- 
quiry, finds that John P. Duke, the person alleged to have furnished such sup- 
plies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was 
loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 
Filed April 11, 1904. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10450. John P. Duke v. The United States.] 

statement of case. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for supplies or stores alleged to have 
been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their 
use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to 
the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on 
the 14th day of January, 1902. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 11th day of April, 1904, found 
that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom 
they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the 
United States throughout said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 14th day of January, 
1907. 

George A. and William B. King appeared for claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by John Q. Thompson, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, ap- 
peared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations : 

That he was, during the civil war, a resident of the State of Missouri and 
did not give any aid or comfort to the said rebellion, but was throughout that 
war loyal to the Government of the United States. 

That the following property taken from said claimant was taken from him 
by the United States Army and used by the said Army, the date, place, and 
command being particularly stated below : 

In Jackson County, in the State of Missouri, in or about August, 1862, by 
Lieutenant-Colonel Burris, of the Fourth Kansas Cavalry, to wit: 

100 pairs of calf boots, $10 per pair $1, 000. 00 

500 pairs French kip boots, $8 per pair 4,000.00 

100 pairs heavy French calf boots, $9 per pair 900. 00 

200 pairs heavy shoes, at $3 per pair 600. 00 

48 pairs French calfskins, $50 per dozen 200. 00 

60 kipskins, $75 per dozen : 375. 00 

840 pounds of leather, 28 cents per pound 227. 20 

Total 7, 302.20 



214 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDING OF FACT. 

During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the 
United States, consisting of Kansas troops, took possession of the stock of boots 
and shoes and leather of the claimant in the town of Independence, Mo., in the 
year 1S62, and caused the same to be shipped to Kansas City, but for what 
purpose does not appear. 

The reasonable value of the stock of merchandise so taken and shipped to 
Kansas City was at the time and place the sum of twenty-three hundred and 
ninety dollars ($2,390), no part of which appears to have been paid. 

By the Court. 
Filed January 28, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 29th day of January, 1907. 

[SEAL.] • John Randolph, 

Assist'.nit Clerk Court of Claims. 

JOSEPH C. GRISSOM. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-58. Joseph C. Grissom v. The United 

States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. ■ 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- 
mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 
1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 21st day of Janu- 
ary, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant and the Attorney- 
General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, ap- 
peared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of 
Jasper in the State of Missouri. 

2. That he, being the sergeant of Company H, One hundred and thirtieth 
Regiment of Indiana Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned 
by the governor of the State of Indiana as second lieutenant thereof on August 
15, 1864, and that from and after said date he assumed and performed all the 
duties of his said grade until September 1, 1865, when he was mustered in as 
captain. Said regiment was continuously below the minimum number pre- 
scribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, he was re- 
fused muster and recognition in the grade of second lieutenant during said 
period. 

3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allow- 
ances of a sergeant although he was in the continuous performance of the 
duties of second lieutenant. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon 
other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. Joseph C. Grissom, the claimant hi this case, is a citizen of the United 
States and resident in the county of Jasper in the State of Missouri. 

2. On August 15, 1804, the said .Josei)h C. Crissom was sergeant of Company 
H, One hundred and thirtieth Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry. On that 
date and until he was mustered into the service, to wit, on September 1, 1865, 
the same was and continued to be below the miuinunu number prescribed by 
General Order, No. 182, of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into 
effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., 
p. 734). 

The second lieutenant of said Company H, One hundred and thirtieth Regi- 
ment Indiana A'olunteer Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in 



ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIlSr CLAIMS. 215 

said grade, the duties of second lieutenant devolved upon this claimant, who 
then and thereafter assumed and performed all the duties of second lieutenant 
of said Company H, One hundred and thirtieth Regiment Indiana Volunteer 
Infantry, until September 1, 1865, when he was mustered in as captain. 

The governor of the State of ludiana also issued to this claimant a commis- 
sion as second lieutenant Company H, One hundred and thirtieth Regiment 
Indiana Volunteer Infantry. 

3. On the said August 16, 1864, the mustering officer then and thereafter re- 
fused to muster this claimant as second lieutenant of said Company H, One 
hundred and thirtieth Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry, solely because 
his command was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he con- 
tinued to perform the duties of second lieutenant until he was mustered into 
the service as captain September 1, 1865. 

4. During the period aforesaid, to wit, from August 16, 1864, to August 31, 
1865, this claimant employed one servant, not enlisted, but whether the employ- 
ment was in connection witli other officers of the company, and what amount, 
if anything, was paid him, is not shown. 

5. During said period this claimant did draw rations from the Government 
about one-half the time. 

6. If the said Joseph C. Grissom should be deemed second lieutenant of Com- 
pany H, One hundred and thirtieth Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry, and 
entitled to the pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances 
as a sergeant, which he has received, and that of a second lieutenant, to which 
he would have been entitled had he been mustered for the period from August 
16; 1864, to August 31, 1865, would amount to $1,208.19, without deduction for 
income tax, as reported by the Auditor for the War Department. 

Income tax, if to be deducted, would amount to $54.76, leaving a balance of 
eleven hundred and fifty-three dollars and forty-three cents ($1,153.43). 

By the Court. 
Filed January 21, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 23d day of January, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

JOHN R. HAMACHER. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-60. John R. Hamacher v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- 
mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatvies on the 14th day of May, 
1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 11th day of 
March, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, ap- 
peared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant, in his petition, malies substantially the following allegations : 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States, and resident in the county of 
Ray, in the State of Missouri. 

2. That he, being the captain of Company D, Forty-ninth Regiment of Indiana 
Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the govei'nor of the 
State of Indiana as major thereof on September 6, 1865, and that from and 
after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until 
September 18, 1865, when he was mustered out as captain. Said regiment was 
continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, 
and for this reason, and no other, he was refused muster and recognition in the 
grade of major during said period. 

3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allow- 
ances of a captain, although he was in the continuous performance of the 
duties of major. 



216 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

Upon the reports furuislied by the War and Treasury Departments and upon 
other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court malces the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. John R. Hamacher, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United 
States and resident in the county of Ray, in the State of Missouri. 

2. On September 6, 1865, the said John R. Hamacher was captain of Company 
D, Forty-ninth Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until 
he was mustered out of the service, to wit, on September 18, 1865, the same was 
and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Order 
No. 182 of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 
of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863. (12 tSat. L. 734.) 

The major of said Forty-ninth Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry being 
then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of major devolved 
upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all the 
duties of major of said Forty -ninth Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry, 

The governor of the State of Indiana also issued to this claimant a commis- 
sion as major, Forty-ninth Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry. 

3. On the said September 6, 1865, the mustering officer then and thereafter 
lefused to muster this claimant as major of said Forty-ninth Regiment Indiana 
Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its minimum 
strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of major 
until he was mustered out of the service as captain, September 18, 1865. 

4. If the said John R. Hamacher should be deemed major. Forty-ninth Regi- 
ment Indiana Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay of that grade, the dif- 
ference between his pay and allowances as a captain which he has received, 
and that of a major to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered 
for the period from September 6, 1865, to September IS, 1865, would amount to 
$42.38 (forty-two dollars and thirty-eight cents), as reported by the Auditor for 
the War Dej^artmeut, including $4.86 erroneously stopped for income tax on re- 
muster. 

By the Court. 
Filed March 11, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 13th day of March, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

JACKSON COUNTY, MO. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 1441. Jackson County, Missouri, v. The 

United States.] 

statement of case. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have 
been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their 
use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to 
the court by the War Claims Committee of the House of Representatives on 
the 16th day of February, A. D. 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 13th dav of February, 
1905. 

V. B. Edwards, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General by 
Charles F. Kiucheloe, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in its petition makes the following allegations : 

1. That prior to and during the late war of the rebellion said county of Jack- 
son owned and possessed certain public buildings in the city of Independence, 
Mo., to wit, a court-house and jail, including a square of ground on which they 
were situated. 

2. That in the exigencies of the said war the occupancy of the said buildings 
and grounds was required by the Union Army, whereupon, under the direction 
of Colonel Jennison, the said buildings and grounds were taken possession of by 
said military forces on or about the 1st day of November, 1861, and were occu- 
pied from that date by said troops under Colonel Jennison, succeeded by Colonel 
Buell, Colonel Van Horn, Colonel Penick, and others, continuously until the 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 217 

ISth day of July, 3865, for officers' quarters, provost marslial's offices, hospital 
purposes, and other uses. 
3. That the reasonable value of such use and occupation was as follows: 

Rent of court-house and square, 3 years S months 14 days, at $3,000 

per annum $11, 116. 66 

Rent of jail from January I, 1862, to July 15, 1865, at $720 per an- 
num, 3 years 6 months 14 days 2, 548. 00 

That by reason of such occupation the repairs i-endered necessary over and 
above the natural and oi'dinary wear and tear, and which were made by peti- 
tioner, amounted to over $8,000, the total claim for such nse, occupation, and 
repairs being $21,664.66. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

During the war for the suppression of the rebellion (from November, 1862, to 
July, 1863) the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, used 
and occupied the court-house and jail at Independence, Mo., the property of the 
county of Jackson, State of Missouri, for officers' quarters and hospital purposes. 
The reasonable rental for said use and occupation during said period was the 
sum of four hundred and ten dollars ($410), for which no payment appears to 
have been made. 

By the Court. 

Filed March 20, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 9th day of December, 1905, 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

ABRAM JONES. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 7397. Abram Jones v. The United States.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been takenby 
or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary 
inquiry, finds that Abram Jones, the person alleged to have furnished such sup- 
plies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was 
loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 
Filed June 27, 1892. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 7397. Aliram Jones v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stoi-es alleged to have 
been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their 
use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted 
to the court by the Committee on War Claims, House of Representatives, on 
the 26th day of February, 1890. 

On a preliminary inquiry, the court, on the 27th day of June, 1892, found that 
the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they 
were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United 
States throughout said vs^ar. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 19th dav of March, 
3906. 

George, A. & William B. King, esqs., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by P. M. Ashford, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared 
for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations : 

That he was during the late war of the rebellion a resident of the State of 
Missouri, and did not give any aid or comfort to the said rebellion, but was 
throughout the war loyal to the Government of the United States. 



218 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

That the following property belonging to him wKs taken from him by the 
United States Army and used by the said Army ; in Barton County, State of 
Missouri, on or about the dates below mentioned : 

Taken November 1, 1862, by Lieutenant Lane, regimental commissary 
Sixth Kansas Cavalry, 5 beef cattle. 500 pounds net each, at S cents 
per pound $200 

Taken September IS and 20, 1S62. by regimental quartermaster Second 

Ohio Cavalry Volunteers, 500 bushels of corn, .at $1 per bushel 500 

Taken March IS, 1S62, by Lieut. James Davis, regimental quartermaster 

Fifth Kansas Cavalry Volunteers, 480 bushels of corn, at $1 per bushel- 480 

Taken September IS or 20, 1862, by regimental quartermaster Third 

Wisconsin Cavalry Volunteers, 500 bushels of corn, at $1 per bushel 500 



Total 1,680 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDIJSfG OF FACT. 

There was taken from the claimant during the war for the suppression of the 
rebellion, in Barton County, State of Missouri, hj the military forces of the 
United States for the use of the Army property of the kind and character above 
described, which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of two hundred 
and forty-five dollars ($245), for which no payment appears to have been made. 

Bt the Court. 

Filed March 26, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 19th day of May, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

AMANDA M. LIVESAY, ADMINISTRATRIX OF JOHN W. LI VESA Y. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10314. Amanda M. Livesay, administratrix of 
.Jolin W. Livesay, deceased, v. The United States.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by 
or furnished to the militai-y forces of the United States for their use during the 
late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, in a preliminary in- 
quiry, finds that John W. Livesay, deceased, the person alleged to have fur- 
nished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been 
taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed December 19, 1904. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 10314. Amanda M. Livesay, administratrix" 
of John W. Livesay, deceased, c. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have 
been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their 
use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted 
to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives 
on the 15th day of January. 1903. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the n9th day of December, 1901, 
fotmd that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from 
whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the (Jovernment of 
the United States throughout said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the Ttli day of January, 
1908. 

George A. & Wm. B. King appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by A. C. Campbell, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the ITnited States. 



ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN" CLAIMS. 219 

The-claimant in her petition malies tlie following allegations: 

That the following property belonging to John W. Livesay was taken from 

him by the United States Army and used by the said Army, the date, place, 

and command being particularly stated below : 

In Dent County, in the State of Missouri, on or about the dates and by the 

commands hereinafter set forth, to wit : 

1. For rent of Barnon Hotel property from September 1, 1861, to 

September 1, 1868, by Major Bowen, Captain Ostemyer, and 
Captain Whybark, respectively, for use of cavalry horses of 
their commands, 24 months, at $15 per month " '_ $360. 00 

2. For rent of hotel building by Captain Whybark, Company M, 

Fifth Missouri State Militia, for hospital and headquarters 

from September 1, 1863, to April 11, 1$65, 19^ months, at $50__ 966. 66 

3. 1,600 shingles used in making roof of stables, $3 per thousand, De- 

cember, 1861, by Bowen's battalion of cavah-y 48. 00 

4. 6 doors, worth $3.50 each, and 6 windows, worth $1.50 each, by 

Colonel Bailey, Ninety-ninth Regiment Illinois ; regiment put in 

houses used for hospitals in Salem 30. 00 

5. 7,542 feet of lumber, at $3 per hundred, used in making block- 

houses, stockades, sheds for cavalry horses 226. 26 

6. 38 cords of wood used as fuel, at $2 per cord 76. 00 

Taken by Major Drake, Third Regiment Iowa Cavalry, October, 

1862 : 

7. 5,586 feet lumber taken in April, 1869, by Capt. P. Ostemyer, Com- 

pany C, Fifth Missouri State Militia, used for making stables, 

blockhouses, bunks, etc., at $3 per hundred 167.58 

Taken in 1863 by Capt. L. E. Whybark, Company M, Fifth Mis- 
souri State Militia : 

8. 10,129 feet lumber taken from barn and used in making sheds, 

stables, blockhouses, etc., at $3 per hundred l 303. 87 

9. 27,000 shingles from barn, used in making roofs, at $3 per thou- 

sand 81. 00 

10. 27 posts taken from barn, used in making houses, stables, worth 

50 cents each 1 13.50 

Taken by Colonel Tenth Kansas Regiment Cavalry, November, 
1863 : 

11. 1,453 feet lumber from log house, $3 per hundred 43. 59 

12. 640 solid feet timber from log house, 10 cents per foot 64. 00 

13. 7,000 shingles from log house, worth .$3 per thousand 21.00 

14. 67 cords of wood used as fuel, at $2 per cord 134. 00 

Total 2, 525. 46 

That the claim was presented to the Quartermaster-General, the items of said 
claim being as heretofore stated. 

Said claim was not allowed by said tribunal, the ground for said action being 
that is was not considered that the claimant was loyal, and that the claim 
should be considered in the light of a claim for damages. 

That the claim was presented to the Fifty-sixth Congress, and was by the 
House of Representatives of the said Fifty-sixth Congress referred to the Com- 
mittee on War Claims of said House, by which committee it was on the 15th 
day of January, 1901, referred to this court for a finding of the facts in ac- 
cordance with section 1 of an act approved March 3, 1883, entitled " An act to 
afford assistance and relief to Congress and the Executive Departments in the 
uivestigation of claims and demands against the Government." 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

During the late civil war the military forces of the United States, by proper 
authority, for the use of the Army, took from claimant's decedent, John W. 
Livesay, in Dent County, State of Missouri, property of the kind and character 
described in the petition, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably 



220 AliLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

worth the sum of eight hundred and sixteen dollars ($816.00), no part of which 
appears to have been paid. 

By the Court. 
Filed January 13, 1908. 

A true copy. 

Test this 16th day of January, 1908. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

BENJAMIN F. LUTMAN. 

(Court of Claims. Congressional, No: 10732. Benjamin F. Lutman v. The United 

States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of 
May, 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 7th day 
of January, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, ap- 
peared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of 
Cole, in the State of Missouri. 

2. That he, being regimental quartermaster Twelfth Regiment of Missouri 
Volunteer Cavalry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the 
State of Missouri as second lieutenant thereof on April 11, 1865, and that from 
and after December 5, 1865, he assumed and performed all the duties of his 
said grade and in command of his company until April 9, 1866, when he was 
mustered out as regimental quartermaster-sergeant; said regiment was contin- 
uously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for 
this reason and no other he was refused muster and recognition in the grade of 
second lieutenant during said period. 

3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allow- 
ances of a regimental quartermaster-sergeant, although he was in the continu- 
ous performance of the duties of second lieutenant in command of his company. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon 
other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. Benjamin F. Lutman, the claimant of this case, is a citizen of the United 
States and resident of the county of Cole, in the State of Missouri. 

2. On December 5, 1865, Benjamin F. Lutman was regimental quartermaster- 
sergeant Twelfth Regiment of Missouri Volunteer Cavalry. On that date and 
until he was mustered out of the service, to wit, on April 9, 1866, the same was 
and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Orders, 
No. 182, of the War Department, of June 20. 1863, carrying into effect section 
20 of the act of Congress approved Marcli 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., 734). 

All the commissioned oflicers of said Company M, Twelfth Regiment Missouri 
Volunteer Cavalry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade the 
duties of second lieutenant in command of the company devolved upon said 
Benjamin F. Lutman, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all the 
duties of the commanding officer of said Company M, Twelfth Regiment Mis- 
souri Volunteer Cavalry, until April 9, 1866, wben mustered out. 

The governor of the State of Missouri also issued to said Benjamin F. Lut- 
man a commission as second lieutenant Company M, Twelfth Regiment of Mis- 
souri Volunteer Cavalry. 

3. On the said December 5, 1805, the mustering officer then and thereafter 
j-efused to muster the said Benjamin F. Lutman as. second lieutenant of said 
Company M, Twelfth Regiment of Missouri Volunteer Cavalry, solely because 
his command was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he con- 
tinued to perform the duties of second lieutenant commanding the company 
until he was mustered out of the service as regimental quartermaster-sergeant. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. - 221 

4. During the period aforesaid, to wit, from December 5, 1865, to April 9, 
1866, the said Benjamin F. Lutman employed one servant, not enlisted, but 
whether he was employed in connection with other officers of the company and 
how much he was paid, if anything, is not shown, 

5. During said period the said Benjamin F. Lutman did not draw rations 
from the Government. 

6. If the said Benjamin F. Lutman should be deemed second lieutenant com- 
manding of Company M, Twelfth Regiment of Missouri Volunteer Cavalry, and 
entitled to the pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances 
as a regimental quartermaster-sergeant, which he has received, and that of a 
second lieutenant commanding company to which he would have been entitled 
had he been mustered from the period from December 5, 1865, to April 9, 1866, 
would amount to $388.96, without deducting income tax or .$25 advance bounty 
as reported by the Auditor for the War Department. 

7. Income tax, if to be deducted, would amount to $21.13, leaving a balance 
of three hundred and sixty-seven dollars and eighty-three cents ($367.83). 

By the Court. 
Filed January 7, 1907. 

A true copy of the iindings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 9th day of January, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

JAY H. NEFF, ADMINISTRATOR. 

[Court of Claims. No. 12169-132. Jay H. Neflf, administrator of Andrew J. NefE, v. Tlie 

United States.] 

statement of case. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- 
mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 
1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 21st day of Jan- 
uary, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, ap- 
peared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of 
Jackson in the State of Missouri and is the administrator of Andrew J. Neff, 
deceased. 

2. That said Andrew J. Neff, being the lieutenant-colonel of the Eighty-fourth 
Regiment of Indiana Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned 
by the governor of the State of Indiana as colonel thereof on December 10, 
1863 ; and that fi-om and after said date the said Andrew J. Neff assumed and 
performed all the duties of his said grade until September 12, 1864, when he was 
mustered out as lieutenant-colonel ; said regiment was continuously below the 
minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and 
no other, said Andrew J. Neff was refused muster and recognition in the grade 
of colonel during said period. 

3. That during said period the said Andrew J. Neff was allowed and paid pnly 
the pay and allowances of a lieutenant-colonel, although he was in the continu- 
ous performance of the duties of colonel. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon 
other evidence, and upon briefs and arguments of counsel, the court makes the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. Jay H. Neff, administrator of Andrew J. Neff, deceased, the claimant of 
this case, is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of Jackson, 
in the State of Missouri. 

2. On December 1, 1863, Andrew J. Neff was lieutenant-colonel of the Eighty- 
fourth Regiment of Indiana Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was 
mustered the service, to wit, on September 12, 1864, the same was and 
continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Order No. 
182 of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of 
the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 734). 



222 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

The colonel of said EigMy-fourtli Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry being 
then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of colonel devolved 
upon said Andrew J. NefE, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all 
the duties of colonel o^f said Eighty-fourth Regiment Indiana Volimteer Infantry 
until September 12, 1864, when he resigned. 

The governor of the State of Indiana also issued to said Andrew J. NefC a 
commission as colonel of the Eighty-fourth Regiment of Indiana Volunteer 
Infantry. 

3. On the said December 10, 1863, the mustering ofHcer then and thereafter 
refused to muster the said Andrew J. Neff as colonel of said Eighty-fourth Regi- 
ment of Indiana Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below 
its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties 
of colonel until he was mustered out of the service as lieutenant-colonel, Sep- 
tember 12, 1864. 

4. If the said Andrew J. Neff should be deemed colonel of Eighty-fourth Regi- 
ment of Indiana Volunteer Infantry and entitled to the pay of that grade, the 
difference between his pay and allowances as a lieutenant-colonel which he has 
received, and that of a colonel to which he would have been entitled had he been 
mustered from the period from December 10, 1863, to September 12, 1864, would 
amount to $227.90, . without any deduction for income tax as reported by the 
Auditor for the War Dei3artment. There is due also $12.38, short paid as lieu- 
tenant-colonel, making a total due of $240.11. 

5. Income tax, if to be deducted, would amount to $8.15, leaving a balance of 
two hundred and thirty-one dollars and ninety-six cents ($231.96). 

By the Coukt. 
Filed January 21, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 23d day of January, 1907. 

[SEAL.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

LEVI S. NORTH. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 5870. Levi S. Nortli v. The United States.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by 
or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the 
late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, 
finds that Levi S. North, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or 
stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, wa^ loyal to the 
Government of the United States throughout said war. 

By the Coubt. 

Filed May 20, 1901. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 5870. Levi S. Nortli i'. The United States.] 
STATEMENT OF THE CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their use 
during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the 
court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives, on the 
6th day of August, 1888. 

On a preliminary inquiry, the court, on the 20th day of May, 1901, found that 
the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they 
were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United 
States throughout said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 19th day of December, 
1904. George A. & William B. King, esqs., appeared for claimant, and the At- 
torney-General by George H. Anderson, esq., his assistant, and under his direc- 
tion, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United 
States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations : 

1. That during the civil war he was a resident of the State of Missouri, and 
did not give any aid or comfort to the said rebellion, but was throughout that 
war loyal to the Government of the United States. 



ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. 223 

2. That the following property belonging to him was taken from him by the 
United States Army for its use, tie date, place, and command being particularly 
stated below : 

In Adair County, State of Missouri, on or about the 15th of August, 1862, 
by the forces of the United States, namely, the command of General McNeil, to 
wit : 

1,000 bushels of corn, at $1 per bushel $1, 000. 00 

20 tons of hay, at $25 a ton__^ 500. 00 

Total 1, 500. 00 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. There was taken from the clahnant, in Adair County, State of Missouri, 
during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces of the 
United States, for the use of the Army-, property of the kind above described, 
which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of four hundred and ninety 
dollars ($490), for which no payment appears to have been, made. 

By the Couet. 

Filed December 22, 1904. 

A true copy. 

Test this 29th day of Deceu)ber, 1904. 

[SEAL.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

MILDRED TURLEY, ADMINISTRATRIX. 

[Court of Claims. CongTessional, No. 11289. Mildred Turl6y, administratrix of the 
estate of John Turley, deceased, t;. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for supplies or stores alleged to have 
been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United Statesfor their 
use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted 
to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives 
on the 1st day of March, 1904. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 18th day of December, 1905, found 
that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom 
they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the 
United States throughout said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 18th day of April, 
1906. 

G. W. Hott, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Mal- 
colm A. Coles, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and pi'otection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes the following allegations: 

That she is a citizen of the United States, residing in Cass County, State 
of Missouri, where her decedent, John Turley, resided during the late civil 
war. That during said war the military forces of the United States, by proper 
authority, took from the said John Turley, in said county and State, and ap- 
propriated to the use of the United States Army, stores and supplies of the 
kind and character as follows : 

720 bushels of corn, at 60 cents $432 

20,000 feet of walnut lumber, at $20 per thousand 10, 000 

220 cords of wood (rails), at $7 1,540 

300 bushels of corn, at 60 cents 180 

420 cords of wood (rails), at $7 2,940 

Total 15, 092 

(Taken about November, 1863, by the Fourth Cavalry, Missouri State Militia, 
and the Ninth Kansas Volunteer Cavalry.) 



224 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

Tlie court, upon the evidence and after considering tlie briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACTS. 

There was taken from the claimant's decedent, in the countj^ of Cass, State 
of Missouri, during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military 
forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, 
property of the kind and character above described which at the time and place 
of taking was reasonably worth the sum of three thousand three hundred and 
ninety dollars ($3,390). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

By the Court. 

Filed April 23, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 29th day of June, 1906. 

[seal] Archibald Hopkins, 

Chief Clerk Court of Claims, 

H. N. A^AUGHN, EXECUTOR. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 7641. Estate of Beniamin Kirk, deceased, v. The 

United States.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by 
or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the 
late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary in- 
quiry, finds that Benjamin Kirk, the person alleged to have furnished such sup- 
plies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was 
loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed March 9, 1903. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 7641. II. N. Vaugbn, executor of estate of Benja- 
min Kirk, deceased, r. The United States.] 

statement of case. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have 
been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their 
use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted to 
the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on 
the 23d day of April, 1S90. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 9th daj' of March, 1903, found that 
the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they 
were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United 
States throughout said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 27th day of March, 
1906. 

George A. & William B. King appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-Gen- 
eral, by Charles F. Kinchloe, esq., his assistant and under his direction, ap- 
peared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations : 

That he was a resident of Missouri during the late war for the suppression 
of the rebellion ; that on the dates mentioned he had taken from him by the 
Union forces the following property : 

January, 1863, by Major Foreman's Third Regiment Indian Home Guards : 

500 dozen sheaf oats, at 30 cents a dozen $150. 00 

,500 bushels of corn, at 50 cents a bushel 250.00 

50 hogs, 350 pounds, 7,500 pounds, at 3^ cents per pound 262. 50 

40 bushels wheat, at $1 per bushel 40. 00 

Total 702.50 

Property taken from Newton County. Mo. 

That said claims were presented to the Quartermaster and Connnissary De- 
partment of the Army, and were disallowed because thoy were not satisHed of 
the merits of the claim. 



ALLOWANCE OP CEKTAIN CLAIMS. 225 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, uaalies the following 

FINDING OF FACT. 

There was taken from the claimant's decedent in Newton County, Mo., during 
the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United 
States, for the use of the Army, property as above described, which at the time 
and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of three hundred and thirty- 
six dollars ($336). 

It does not appear that any payment has been made for any part thereof. 

By the Court. 

Filed April 2, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 19th day of May, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

HARRIET L. YOUNG, ADMINISTRATRIX. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 7843. Harriet L. Young, administratrix de bonis 
non of Solomon Young, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use 
during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the 
court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 
7th day of June, 1890. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 1st day of December, 1902, found 
that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or f ron\ whom 
they were alleged to have been taken, \yas loyal to the Government of the United 
States throughout said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 7th day of May, 1906. 

G. W. Hott, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. 
V^n Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes the following allegations : 

That she is a citizen of the United States, residing in Jackson County, Mo., 
where her decedent resided during the late war of the rebellion. That at dif- 
ferent times during said period the military forces of the United States, by 
proper authority, took from her decedent q-uartermaster stores and commissary 
supplies of the value of $21,442 and appropriated the same to the use of the 
United States Army, as follows : 

« 

Taken by General Lane in May, 1861 : 

15 mules $2, 250 

13 horses ^ 2, 275 

Taken by General Sturgess in September, 1861 : 

150 head of cattle ■- 6,300 

Taken by Colonel Burris in September, 1862 : 

65 tons of hay 780 

500 bushels of corn 250 

44 head of hogs 462 

1 horse 175 

1 lot of beds and bedding 200 

1 horse, bridle, and saddle 200 

Taken by Colonel Burris, October, 1862 : 

1,200 pounds of bacon 2, 400 

1 house used for guardhouse 1 1, 000 

30,000 rails , 1, 500 

7 wagons 700 

Taken by Captain Axaline in September, 1864 : 

13,000 rails 650 

1,000 bushels of corn 500 

6,000 rations 1, 800 

Total 21, 442 

H. Rep. 543, 60-1 15 



226 ALLOWANCE or CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the 
United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took property of the 
kind and character above described in the petition belonging to the claimant's 
decedent and situate in Jackson County, Mo., which was reasonably worth at the 
time the sum of three thousand eight hundred dollars ($3,800), for which no 
payment appears to have been made. 

By the Court. 

Filed May 21, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 19th day of June, 1906. 

[seal.] Archibald Hopkins, 

Gliief Glerh Court of Claims. 

MONTANA. 

MARY E. L. CALLAWAY. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-22. Mary E. L. Callaway, widow of James 
E. Callaway, deceased, v. The United States.] 

statement OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day 
of May, 1902. The case was brought tp a hearing on its merits on the 21st 
day of January. 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- 
(ieneral, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, ap- 
peared for the defense and the pi'otection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

1. That she is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of 
Madison, in the State of Montana, and is the widow of James E. Callaway, 

2. That said James E. Callaway, being the lieutenant-colonel of the 'Twenty- 
first Regiment of Illinois Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commis- 
sioned by the governor of the State of Illinois as colonel thereof on May 11, 
1865; and that from and after said date the said James E. Callaway assumed 
and performed all the duties of his said grade until May 24, 1865, when he was 
mustered out as lieutenant-colonel; said regiment was continuously below the 
minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no 
other, said James E. Callaway was refused muster and recognition in the grade 
of colonel during said period. 

3. That during the said period the said James E. Callaway was allowed and 
paid only the pay and "allowances of a , although he was in the con- 
tinuous performance of the duties of . 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon 
other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the 
following 

findings of fact. 

1. Mary E. L. Callaway, the claimant of this case, is a citizen of the United 
States and resident of the county o% Madison, in the State of Montana. 

2. On May 11, 1865, was lieutenant-colonel of the Twenty-first 

Regiment of Illinois Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was mus- 
tered out of the service, to wit, on May 24, 1865, the same was and continued to 
be below the minimum number prescribed by General Orders, No. 182, of the 
War Department, of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of 
Congress approved March 8, 1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 734). 

The colonel of said Twenty-first Regiment Illinois Volunteer Infantry bemg 
then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties- of colonel devolved 
upon said James E. Callaway, who then and thereafter assumed and performed 



ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 227 

all the duties of colonel of said Tweuty-first Eegiiiieut Illiuois Yolniiteer Infan- 
try until mustered out as lieutenant-colonel May 24, 1865. 

The governor of the State of Illinois also issued to said James E. Callaway a 
commission as colonel Twenty-first Regiment of Illinois Volunteer Infantry. 

3. On the said Maj 11, 1865, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused 
to muster the said James E. Callaway as colonel of said Twenty-first Regiment 
of Illinois Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its mini- 
mum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of 
colonel until he was mustered out of the service as lieutenant-colonel May 24, 
1865. 

4. If the said James E. Callaway should be deemed colonel of Twenty-first 
Regiment of Illinois Volunteer Infantry and entitled to the pay of that grade, 
the difference bet\^'een his pay and allowances as a lieutenant-colonel which he 
has received and that of a colonel to which he would have been entitled had he 
been mustered from the period from May 11, 1865, to May 24, 1865, would 
amount to $53.23, without any deduction for income tax, as reported by the 
Auditor for the War Department, including an erroneous deduction of $2.63 for 
income tax on remuster under acts passed since the repeal of the income-tax 
law. 

5. Income tax, if to be deducted, would amount to $2.95, leaving a balance of 
fifty -dollars and twenty-eight cents ($50.28). 

By the Court. 
Filed January 21, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 24th day of January, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

NEBRASKA. 

MARGARET C. FRENCH. 

[Court of Claims. No. 10679. Margaret C. French, widow of Columbus P. French, •;;. 

The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- 
mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 
1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 21st day of Janu- 
ary, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant and the Attorney- 
General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, ap- 
peared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

1. That she is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of ( ?) 
in the State of Nebraska, and is the widow of Columbus P. French, deceased. 

2. That said decedent being the first sergeant of Company H, Second Regi- 
ment of Iowa Volunteer Cavalry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the 
governor of the State of Iowa as second lieutenant thereof on May 19, 1865, to 
rank from May 10, 1865, and that from and after said date the said decedent 
assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until October 3, 1865, 
when he was mu.stered out as first sergeant. Said regiment was continuously 
below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this 
reason and no other said decedent was refused muster and recognition in the 
grade of second lieutenant during said period. 

3. That during said period the said decedent was allowed and paid only the 
pay and allowances of a first sergeant, although he was in the continuous per- 
formance of the duties of second lieutenant. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon 
other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. Margaret C. French, the claimant of this case, is a citizen of the United 
States and resident of the county of (?) in the State of Nebraska. 

2. On May 10, 1865, Columbus P. French was first sergeant of Company H, 
Second Regiment of Iowa Volunteer Cavalry. On that date and until he was 



228 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

mustered out tlie service, to wit, on October 3, 1865, tlie same was and continued 
to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Orders, No. 182, of the 
War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of 
Congress approved March 3, 1863. (12 Stat. L., 7.34.) 

The second lieutenant of said Company H, Second Regiment Iowa Volunteer 
Cavalry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of 
second lieutenant devolved upon said decedent, who then and thereafter assumed 
and performed all the duties of second lieutenant of said Company H, Second 
Regiment Iowa ^'oluuteer Cavalry, until mustered out of the service. 

The governor of the State of Iowa also issued to said decedent a commission 
as second lieutenant Company H,- Second Regiment of Iowa A'olunteer Cavalry. 

3. On the said May 10, 1865, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused 
to muster the said decedent as second lieutenant of said Company H, Second 
Regiment of Iowa Volunteer Cavalry, solely because his command was below its 
minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of 
second lieutenant until he was mustered out the service as first sergeant. 

4. During the period aforesaid, to wit, from May 10, 1865, to October 3, 1865, 
the said decedent employed no servant not enlisted. 

5. During said period the said decedent did draw rations from the Govern- 
ment, 

6. If the said decedent should be deemed second lieutenant of Company H, 
Second Regiment of Iowa Volunteer Cavalry, and entitled to the pay of that 
grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a first sergeant, which 
he has received, and that of a second lieutenant, to which he would have been 
entitled had he been mustered from the period from May 10, 3865, to October 3, 
1865, would amount to $176.40 without any deduction for income tax, as re- 
ported by the Auditor for the War Department. 

7. Income tax, if to be deducted, would amount to $15.39, leaving a balance of 
one hundred and sixty-one dollars and one cent ($161.01). 

By the Court. 
Filed January 21, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 24th day of January, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

MICHAEL TRUCKS. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-179. Michael Trucks v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of 
May, 1902. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 21st day of January, 
1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, ap- 
peared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of 
Cuming, in the State of Nebraska. 

2. That he, being the sergeant of Company C, Second Regiment of Iowa Volun- 
teer Cavalry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State 
of Iowa as second lieutenant thereof on March 4, 1865, and that from and after 
said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until Octo- 
ber 3, 1865, when he was mustered out as sergeant; said regiment was contin- 
uously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for 
this reason, and no other, he was refused muster and recognition in the grade 
of second lieutenant during said period. 

3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allow- 
ances of a sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance of the 
duties of second lieutenant. 



A1.L0WANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 229 

Upon the reports fnrnisliecl by the War and Treasury Departments and upon 
other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel, the court makes the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. Michael Trucks, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States 
and resident in the county of Cuming, in the State of Nebraska. 

2. On March 4, 1865, the said Michael Trucks was sergeant of Company C, 
Second Regiment Iowa Volunteer Cavalry. On that date and until he was mus- 
tered out of the service — to wit. on October .3, 1865 — the same was and continued 
to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Orders, No. 182, of the 
War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of 
Congress approved March 3, 1863. (12 Stat. L., 734.) 

The second lieutenant of said Company C, Second Regiment Iowa Volunteer 
Cavalry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of 
second lieutenant devolved upon this claimant, Avho then and thereafter assumed 
and performed all the duties of second lieutenant of said Company C, Second 
Regiment Iowa Volunteer Cavalry, until October 3, 1865, when he was mustered 
out of the service as sergeant. 

The governor of the State of Iowa also issued to this claimant a commission as 
second lieutenant Company C, Second Regiment Iowa Volunteer Cavalry. 

3. On th said March 4, 1865, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused 
to muster this claimant as second lieutenant of said Company C, Second Regiment 
Iowa Volunteer Cavalry, solely because his command was below its minimum 
strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of second 
lieutenant until he was mustered out of the service as sergeant October 3, 1865. 

4. If the said Michael Trucks should be deemed second lieutenant of Company 
O, Second Regiment Iowa '^^olunteer Cavalry, and entitled to the pay of that 
grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a sergeant, which he 
has received, and that of a second lieutenant, to which he would have been en- 
titled had he been mustered for the period from March 4, 1865, to October 8, 
1865, would amount to $377.67, without any deduction for income tax, as re- 
ported by the Auditor for the War Department. 

5. Income tax, if to be deducted, would amount to- $22.56, leaving a balance of 
three hundred and fifty-five dollars and eleven cents ($355.11). 

By the Court. 
Filed January 21, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 23d day of January, 1907. 

[SEAL.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

NEW HAMPSHIRE. 
ELEAZER L. SARSONS. 

[Court of Claims. CoiigTessional, No. 12189-153. Eleazer L. Sai-sou.s v. Tbe United 

States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- 
mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 
1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 21st day of Jan- 
uary, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, bj^ James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, ap- 
peared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the Ignited States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the folowing allegations : 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of 
Southerland in the State of New Hampshire. 

2. That he, being the first lieutenant of Company F, Fourth Regiment of New 
Hampshire Volunteer Infantiy, was duly appointed or commissioned by the 
governor of the State of New Hampshire as captain thereof on June 2, 1865 ; 
and that from and after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of 
his said grade until Julv 17, 1865. when he was mustered out as first lieutenant. 



230 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

Said regiment was continuously below tlie minimum number prescribed by law 
and regulation ; and for tbis reason, and no otber, be was refused muster and 
recognition in tbe grade of captain during said period. 

3. Tbat during said period be was allowed and paid only tbe pay and allow- 
ances of a first lieutenant, altbougb be was in tbe continuous performance of 
tbe duties of captain. 

Upon tbe reports furnisbed by tbe War and Treasury Departments, and upon 
otber evidence, and upon briefs and arguments of counsel, tbe court makes tbe 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. Eleazer L. Sarsons, tbe claimant in this case, is a citizen of tbe United 
States and resident in tbe county of Soutberland in tbe State of New Hampsbire. 

2. On June 2, 1865, tbe said Eleazer L. Sarsons was first lieutenant of Com^ 
pany F, Fourth Regiment New Hampsbire Volunteer Infantry. On that date 
and until be was mustered out of tbe service — to wit, on July 17, 1865 — the 
same was and continued to be below tbe minimum number prescribed by Gen- 
eral Orders No. 182, of tbe War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect 
section 20 of tbe act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 734). 

Tbe captain of said Company F, Fourth Regiment New Hampsbire Volunteer 
Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, tbe duties of 
captain devolved upon tbis claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and per- 
formed all the duties of captain of said Company F, Fourth Regiment New 
Hampshire Volunteer Infantry, until July 17, 1865. 

The governor of the State of New Hampshire also issued to this claimant a 
commission as captain, Company F, Fourth Regiment New Hampshire Volunteer 
Infantry. 

3. On tbe said June 2, 1865, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused 
to muster tbis claimant as captain of said Company F, Fourth Regiment New 
Hampshire Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its mini- 
mum strength, as aforesaid, although be continued to perform the duties of 
captain until be was mustered out of the service as first lieutenant July 17, 1865. 

4. If tbe said Eleazer L. Sarsons should be deemed captain of Company F, 
Fourth Regiment New Hampshire Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to tbe pay 
of tbat grade, the difterence between bis pay and allowances as a first lieu- 
tenant, which he has received, and tbat of a captain, to which be would have 
been entitled bad he been mustered for the period from June 2, 1865, to July 17, 
1865, would amount to $40.33, without any deduction for income tax, as reported 
by the Auditor for the War Department, including $25 advance veteran bounty 
which was erroneously stopped. 

5. Income tax, if to be deducted, would amount ta $0.77, leaving a balance of 
thirty-nine dollars and fifty-six cents ($39.56). 

By the Court, 
Filed January 21, 1907. 

A true copy of tbe findings of fact by tbe court. 

Test this 23d day of January, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims, 

NEW JERSEY. 

JOHN H. AREY. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169 — 3. .John H. Arey r. The L'nited States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in tbe abo^e-eutitled case was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims of tbe House of Representatives on tbe 14th day 
of May, 1902. Tbe case was brought to a bearing on its merits on the 8th day 
of November, 1906. 

Mesrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for tbe claimant and tbe Attorney- 
General, by James A. Tanner, esq., bis assistant and under bis direction, ap- 
peared for tbe defense and tbe protection of tbe interests of tbe Uited States. 

Tbe claimant in bis petition makes substantially tbe following allegations: 

1. Tbat he is a citizen of tbe United States and resident in tbe county of 
Mercer, in tbe State of. New Jersej'. 



ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. 231 

2. That he, being the captain of Company G, Thirteenth Regiment of New 
Jersey Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor 
of the State of New Jersey as major thereof on January 31, 1865 ; and that from 
and after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade 
until June 20, 1865, when he was mustered out as captain ; said regiment was 
continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and 
for this reason, and no other, he was refused muster and recognition in the 
grade of major during said period. 

3. That' during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allow- 
ances of a captain, although he was in the continuous performance of the 
duties of major. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon 
other evidence and vipon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. John H. Arey, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States 
and resident in the county of Mercer, in the State of New Je^ey. 

2. On January 31, 1S65, the said John H. Arey was captain of Company G, 
Thirteenth Regiment New Jersey Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he 
was mustered out of the service, to wit, on June 20, 1865, the same was and con- 
tinued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Order No. 182 of 
the War Department of June" 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of 
Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 734). 

The major of said Thirteenth Regiment New Jersey Volunteer Infantry, being 
then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of major devolved 
upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all the 
duties of major of said Thirteenth Regiment New Jersey Volunteer Infantry 
until mustered out as captain. 

The governor of the State of New Jersey also issued to this claimant a com- 
mission as major. Thirteenth Regiment New Jersey Volunteer Infantry. 

3. On the said January 31, 1865, the mustering officer then and thereafter re- 
fused to muster this claimant as major of said Thirteenth Regiment New Jersey 
Volunteer Infantry solely because his command was below its minimum strength, 
as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of major until he was 
mustered out of the service as captain. 

4. During the period aforesaid, to wit, from January 31, 1865, to June 20, 1866, 
this claimant employed only one servant, not enlisted. 

5. If the said John H. Arey should be deemed major of iThirteenth Regiment 
New Jersey Volunteer Infantry and entitled to the pay of that grade, the dif- 
ference between his pay and allowances as a captain which he has received, and 
that of a major, with one servant, to which he would have been entitled had 
he been mustered for the period from January 31, 1865, to June 20, 1865, would 
amount to $20.39, as reported by the Auditor for the War Department (twenty 
dollars and thirty -nine cents). 

By the Court, 
Filed December 3, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 6th day of December, 1906. 

[seal] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

NEW MEXICO. 

EDWARD H. BERGMANN. 

(Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 7344. Edward H. Bergmann v. The United States.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by 
or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the 
late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary in- 
quiry, finds that Edward H. Bergmann, the person alleged to have furnished/ 
such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, 
was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. 

By THE Court. 
Filed April 13, 1903. 



232 ALLOWANCE OF 'CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 7344. Edward H. Bergmann v. The United 

States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

Tlie claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to liave 
been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for 
their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion was trans- 
mitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims, House of Representa- 
tives, on the 17th day of February, 1890. 

On a" preliminary inquiry the court, on the 13th day of April, 1903, found that 
the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom 
they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the 
United States throughout said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 19th day of Decem- 
ber, 1904. George A. & William B. King, esqs., appeared for claimant, and 
the Attorney- Gen^-al, by Charles F. Kincheloe, esq., his assistant and under 
his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the 
United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations : 

That from the month of July, 1861, to the month of July, 1864, claimant was 
captain of Company I, First Regiment of New Mexico, serving in the war of the 
rebellion. That in or about the months of June and July, 1862, said company 
being at Polvadera, N. Mex., and claimant being captain thereof, it became 
necessary to supply to the men of said company certain necessary articles, con- 
sisting of clothing and shoes, which were indispensably necessary to enable 
said company to perform the militarj^ duties required of it at said time and 
place, and there being no supplies to which said claimant could have access, 
and no officers from whom such supplies could be obtained, to whom com- 
plainant could have access or with whom he could communicate for the purpose 
of obtaining such necessary supplies, claimant was compelled and did lay out 
and advance for the purchase of such articles of clothing and shoes as was 
absolutely necessary for the use of said men of said company the snm of twelve 
hundred dollars ($1,200), which said sum he did necessarily and prudently 
expend in procuring for said company such supplies as were necessary for the 
ptirpose aforesaid, and for which amount claimant seeks compensation. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDING OF FACT. 

The claimant herein was captain in a company of Kit Carson's regiment. 
Early in 1862, his company being nearly destitute of clothing, he advanced 
$1,200 to purchase clothing for them. Reports from the Quartermaster-General 
show that no clothing was issued by the United States to the regiment for 
several months, including the time at which claimant purchased clothing; also 
that no payment has been made to claimant for clothing. 

By the Coxtrt, 

Filed December 22, 1904. 

A true copy. 

Test this 29th day of December, 1904. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistaiii Clerk Court of Claims. 

ANASTACIO DE BACA, ADMINISTRATOR OF FRANCISCO DE BACA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10029. Anstacio de Baca, administrator of Fran- 
cisco de Baca, deceased, v. The United States.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by 
or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminai'y 
inquiry, finds that Francisco de Baca, deceased, the person alleged to have fur- 
nished such supi)]ies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been 
taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed May 1, 1905. 



ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. 233 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case, No. 10029. Anastacio de Baca, surviving admin- 
istrator of Francisco de Baca, deceased, v. Tlie United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies, or stores, alleged to have 
been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their 
use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to 
the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Eepresentatives on 
the 13th day of February, 1900. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 1st day of May, 1905, found that 
the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they 
were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United 
States throughout said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 12th day of April, 1906. 

George A. & William B. King, esqs., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by P. M. Ashford, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared 
for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations : 

That he is the surviving administrator of decedent and that he was ap- 
pointed March 3, 1875, by the probate court in and for Santa Ana County, Terri- 
tory of New Mexico ; that his decedent was during the civil war a resident of 
the Territory of New ^Mexico and did not give any aid or comfort to the said 
rebellion, but throughout that war was loyal to the Government of the United 
States. 

That the following property belonging to his decedent was taken from him by 
the United States Army for its use, viz, troops under the command of Lieuten- 
ant Russell, in Santa Ana County, Territory of New Mexico, in July, 1S62, 
namely : 

1,400 sheep and 1 burro of the value of $3,025 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACTS. 

I. During the civil war for the suppression of the rebellion and prior to June^ 
1862, the Navajo Indians took and drove away from the claimant's decedent 
in Santa Ana County, Territory of New Mexico, property of the character and 
kind described in the petition, a portion of which property being subsequently 
recaptured from said Indians and taken by the military forces of the United 
States and used for the benefit of the United States. The reasonable value of 
the property so recairtured at the time and place was thirteen hundred and 
twenty-five ($1,325) dollars, no part of which appears to haA^e been paid. 

II. A claim for this property was presented to the Commissary-General of 
Subsistence, but by him disallowed, because it was not considered that claim- 
ant's decedent was the owner of the i^roperty and that he was not loyal to the 
Government of the United States. The claim was later presented to the Fifty- 
sixth Congress and referred to this court February 13, 1900, as aforesaid. 

By the Court. 
December 2, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 21st day of January, 1908. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

MARY W. LITTELL. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10727. Mary W. Littell, widow of William J, 
Littell, deceased, v. The United States.] 

statement of case. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com= 
mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May^ 
-1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 12th day of No^ 
vember, 1906. 



^34 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, ap- 
peared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

1. That she is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of 
Lincoln, in the Territory of New Mexico, and the widow of William J. Littell, 
deceased. 

2. That said William J. Littell, being the first sergeant of Company A, Sev- 
enteenth Regiment of Kentucky Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed, or 
commissioned by the governor of the State of Kentucky as second lieutenant 
thereof on July 22, 1863; and that from and after said date the said William 
J. Littell assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until January 
23, 1865, when he was mustered out as first sergeant; said regiment was con- , 
tinuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and 
for this reason, and no other, said William J. Littell was refused muster and 
recognition in the grade of second lieutenant during said period. 

3. That during said period the said William J. Littell was allowed and paid 
only the pay and allowances of a first sergeant, although he was in the con- 
tinuous performance of the duties of second lieutenant. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon 
other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. Mary W. Littell, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United 
States and resident of the county of Lincoln, in the Territory of New Mexico. 

2.' On July 22, 1863, William J. Littell was first sergeant of Company A, Sev- 
enteenth Regiment of Kentucky Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until 
he was mustered out of the service, to wit, on January 23, 1865, the same was 
and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Orders, 
No, 182, of the War Department of June 30, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 
of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863. (12 Stat. L., p. 734.) 

The second lieutenant of said Company A, Seventeenth Regiment Kentucky 
Volunteer Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the 
duties of second lieutenant devolved upon said William J. Littell, who then 
and thereafter assumed and performed all the duties of second lieutenant of 
said Company A, Seventeenth Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry, until 
mustered out as first sei"geaut as aforesaid. 

The governor of the State of Kentucky also issued to said William J. Littell 
a commission as second lieutenant Company A, Seventeenth Regiment of Ken- 
tucky Volunteer Infantry- 

3. On the said July 22, 1863, the mustering oflieer then and thereafter refused 
to muster the said William J. Littell as second lieutenant of said Company A, 
Seventeenth Regiment of Kentucky Volunteer Infantry, solely because his 
command was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he con- 
tinued to perform the duties of second lieutenant until he was mustered out of 
the service as first sergeant as aforesaid. 

4. During the period aforesaid, to wit, from July 22, 1863, to January 23, 
1865, the said William J. Littell employed no servant not enlisted. 

5. During said period the said William J. Littell did draw rations from the 
Government. 

6. If the said William J. Littell should be deemed second lieutenant of Com- 
pany A, Seventeenth Regiment of Kentucky Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to 
the pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a first 
sergeant, which he has received, and that of a second lieutenant, to which he 
would have been entitled had he been mustered from the period from July 22, 
1863, to January 23, 1865, would amount to $632.18, without any deduction 
being made for income tax, as reported by the Auditor for the War Department. 

7. Income tax. if to be deducted, would amount to .$22.56, and if deducted 
would leave a balance of six hundred and nine dollars and sixty-tiW^o cents 
($609.62). 

By the Court. 

Filed November 12, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 13th day of November, 1906. 

[SEAL.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 235 

NEW YORK. 
LUTHER S. BRYANT. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-12. Luther S. Bryant v. Tlie United 

States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- 
mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 
1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 1st day of April, 
1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker and Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, ap- 
peared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of 
Franklin, in the State of New York. • 

2. That he, being the second lieutenant of Company C, One hundred and 
eighteenth Regiment of New York Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or 
commissioned by the governor of the State of New York as first lieutenant 
thereof on June 15, 1864, and that from and after June 16, 1S64, he assumed and 
performed all the duties of his said grade until October 15, 1864, when he was 
mustei'ed in as such. Said regiment was continuously below the minimum num- 
ber prescribed by-law and regulation, and for this reason and no other he was 
refused muster and recognition in the grade of second lieutenant during said 
period. 

3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the paj- and allow- 
ances, of a second lieutenant, although he was in the continuous performance 
of the duties of first lieutenant in command of his comjjauy. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon 
other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. , 

1. Luther S. Bryant, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United 
States and resident in the coimty of Franklin, in the State of New Yoik. 

2. On June 16, 1S64, the said Luther S. Bryant was second lieutenant of 
Company 0, One hundred and eighteenth Regiment New York Volunteer Infan- 
try. On that date and until he was mustered into the service, to wit, on Octo- 
ber 15, 1864, the same was and continued to be below the minimum number 
prescribed by General Order No. 182 of the War Department of June 20, 1863, 
carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 
(12 Stat. L., p. 734). 

The first lieutenant of said Company C, One hundred and eighteenth Regi- 
ment New York Volunteer Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service 
In said grade, the duties of first lieutenant devolved upon this claimant, who 
then and thereafter assumed and performed all the, duties of first lieutenant 
of said Company C, One hundred and eighteenth Regiment New York Volunteer 
Infantry, until October 15, 1864. 

The governor of the State of New York also issued to this claimant a com- 
mission as first lieutenant. Company C, One hundred and eighteenth Regiment 
New York Volunteer Infantry. 

3. On the said June 16, 1864, the mustering officer then and thereafter re- 
fused to muster this claimant as first lieutenant of said Company C. One hun- 
dred and eighteenth Regiment New York Volunteer Infantry, solely because his 
command was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued 
to perform the duties of first lieutenant \mtil he was mustered into the service 
as such October 15, 1864. 

4. If the said Luther S. Bryant should be deemed first lieutenant of Com- 
pany C, One hundred and eighteenth Regiment New York Volunteer Infantry, 
and entitled to the pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allow- 
ances as a second lieutenant, which he has received, and that of a first lieuten- 
ant, to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered for the period 
from June 16, 1864, to October 14, 1864, would amount to forty-five dollars and 



236 ALLOWANCE OF' CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

thirty-one cents ($45.31), as reported by the Auditor of the War Department, 
including short payments aggregating $25.47. 

5. Income tax, if to be deducted, would amount 4:o $0.93, leaving forty-four 
dollars and thirty-eight cents ($44.38). 

By the ^urt. 

Filed April 1, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 2d day of April,- 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims, 

JOSEPHINE CAMPBELL, WIDOW OF GEORGE CAMPBELL. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-31. Josephine Campbell, widow of George 
Campbell, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- 
mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on he 27th day of March, 
3906. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 11th day of 
March, 1906. 

Messrs. Peunebal\;er & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-Gen- 
eral, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared 
for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

1. That she is a citizen of the United States 'and resident of the county of 
Rensselaer in the State of New Yorl^:, and is the widow of George Campbell, 
deceased. 

2. That said George Campbell being the first sergeant of Company A, One hun- 
dred and sixty-ninth Regiment New Yorlj Volunteer Infantry, was duly ap- 
pointed or commissioned by the governor of the State of New York as second 
lieutenant thereof on January 6, 1865, and that from and after said date the 
said George Campbell assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade 
until March 16, 1865, when he was mustered in as such ; said regiment was con- 
tinuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for 
this reason, and no other, said George Campbell was refused muster and recog- 
nition in the grade of second lieutenant during said period. 

3. That during said period the said George Cauipbell was allowed and paid 
only the pay and allowances of a first sergeant, although he was in the con- 
tinuous performance of the duties of second lieutenant. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments, and upon 
upon other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel, the court makes 
the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. Josephine Campbell, the claimant of this case, is a citizen of the United 
States and resident of the county of Rensselaer in the State of New York. 

On January 16, 1865, George Campbell was first sergeant of Company A, One 
hundred and sixty-ninth Regiment New York Volunteer Infantry. On that date 
and until he was mustered into service, to wit, on 3.1arch 16, 1865, the same was 
and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Orders, 
No. 182, of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 
of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., 734). 

The second lieutenant of said Company A. One hundred and sixty-ninth Regi- 
ment Ne^y York ^'olunteer Infantry, being then and (hereafter out of service in 
said grade, the duties of second lieutenant devolved uiiou said George Campbell, 
who then and thereafter assumed and performed all the duties of second lieuten- 
ant of said Comjiany A, One hundred and sixty-ninth Regiment New York Volun- 
teer Infantry until muster oul, August 4, 1865. 

The governor of the State of New York also issued to said George Camjibell a 
couuuission as socoiul lieutenant Company A, One hundred and sixty-ninth Regi- 
ment New York Volunteer Infantry.- 

3. On the said January 16, 1865, the mustering otiicer tben and thereafter re- 
fused to muster the said George Campbell as second lieutenant of said Company 
A, One hundred and sixty-ninth Regiment New York Volunteer Infantry, solely 



ALLOWANCE OP CEKTAIN CLAIMS. 237 

because his command was below, its miuimum streiigtli, as aforesaid, although 
he continued to perform the duties of second lieutenant until he was mustered 
into the service as such March 16, 1S65. 

4. If the said George Campbell should be deemed second lieutenant of Com- 
pany A, One hundred and sixth-ninth Regiment New York Volunteer Infantry, 
and entitled to the pay of that grade, the diflereuce between his pay and allow- 
ances as a first sergeant which he has received, and tliat of a second lieutenant 
without servant to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered 
from the period from January 17, 1S65, to March 15, 1865. would amount to 
{f272.14 (two hundred and seventy-two dollars and fourteen cents), as reported 
by the Auditor for the War Department, including i?50, bounty act of Julv 28, 
1866. 

By the Court. 

Filed March 11, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as fil^d by the court. 

Test this 13th day of March, 1907. 

[SEAL.] John Randolph. 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

ANNA CAVANAUGH, HEIR OF JOHN FRYER. 

[Court of Claitas. Congvesslonal, No. 12169-5.3. AnnS Cavaiiaugli, sister and sole heir 
of .Jolm Fryer, deceased, v. Tlie United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- 
mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14h day of May, 
1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 11th day of 
March, 3907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant and the Attorney-Gen- 
eral, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared 
for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

1. That she is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of 
Otsego, in the State of New York, and is the sister and sole heir of John Fryer, 
deceased. 

2. That said John Fryer, being the major of Forty-third Regiment of New 
York Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor 
of the State of New York as lieutenant-colonel thereof on February 1, 1864; 
and that from and after said date the said John Fryer assumed and performed 
all the duties of his said grade until May 8, 1864, when he was mustered in 
as such; said regiment was continuously below the minimum number pre- 
scribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, said John 
Fryer was refused muster and recognition in the grade of lieutenant-colonel' 
during said period. 

3. That during said period the said John Fryer was allowed and paid only 
the pay and allowance of a major, although he was in the continuous perform- 
ance, of the duties of lieutenant-colonel. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon 
other evidence, and vipon briefs and arguments of counsel, the court makes the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. Anna Cavanaugh, the claimant of this case, is a citizen of the United 
States and resident of the county of Otsego, in the State of New York. 

2. On February 1, 1864, the said John Fryer was major of Forty-third 
Regiment of New York Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was 
mustered into the service as lieutenant-colonel, to wit, on May 8, 1864, the 
same was aiid continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by Gen- 
eral Order No. 182 of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into 
effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., 
734). 

The lieutenant-colonel of said Forty-third Regiment New York Volunteer 
Infantry being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of 
lieutenant-colonel devolved upon said John Fryer, who then and thereafter as- 
sumed and performed all the duties of lieutenant-colonel of said Forty-third 
Regiment New York Volunteer Infantry until May 8, 1864, 



238 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

The governor of the State of New York also issued to said John Fryer a com- 
mission as lieutenant-colonel Forty-third Eegiment of New York Volunteer In- 
fantry. 

3. On the said February 1, 1S64, the mustering officer then and thereafter 
refused to muster the said John Fryer, as lieutenant-colonel of said Forty- 
third Regiment of New York Volunteer Infantry solely because his command 
was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to per- 
form the duties of lieutenant-colonel imtil he was mustered into the service 
as such May S, 1S64. 

4. If the said John Fryer should be deemed lieutenant-colonel of Forty-third 
Regiment of New York Volunteer Infantry and entitled to the pay of that grade, 
the difference between his pay and allowances as a major, which he has re- 
ceived, and that of a lieutenant-colonel to which he would have been entitled 
had he been mustered from the period from February 2, 1864, to May 7, 1864, 
would amount to $60.80 (sixty dollars and eighty cents) as reported by the 
Auditor for the War Department. 

By the Coubt. 
Filed March 11, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 13th day of March, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

HARRY V. HOES, ADMINISTRATOR OF THEODORE HOES. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional. No. 12169-87. Harry V. Hoes, administrator of 
Theodore Hoes, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- 
mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 27th day of 
March. 1906. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 11th day 
of March, 1907, 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of 
Columbia, in the State of New York, and is the administrator of Theodore Hoes, 
deceased. 

2. That said Theodore Hoes being the first sergeant of Company K, Forty- 
fourth Regiment New York Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or com- 
missioned by the governor of the State of New York as second lieutenant 
thereof on July 8, 1863; and that from and after said date he assumed and per- 
formed all the duties of his said grade until July 12, 1864, when he was mus- 
tered into the service as such ; said regiment was continuously below the mini- 
mum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no 
other, he was refused muster and recognition in said grade during said period. 

3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allow- 
ances of a first sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance of the 
duties of second lieutenant. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments, and upon 
other evidence, and upon briefs and arguments of counsel, the court makes the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. Harry V. Hoes, administi-ator of Theodore Hoes, deceased, the claimant of 
this case, is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county 6f Columbia, 
in the State of New York. 

2. Theodore Hoes enrolled August 8, 1861, and mustered into service as ser- 
geant. Forty-fourth New York Infantry ; reenlisted as a veteran volunteer Feb- 
ruary 18, 1864, and mustered out October 14, 1864, as first lieutenant. The sec- 
ond lieutenant Company K, Forty-fourth New York Infantry, died July 8, 1863, 
and said Theodore Hoes was duly appointed July 8, 1863, by the governor of 
New York to fill said vacancy; the first lieutenant Company B was discharged 
May 27, 1863, and said Theodore Hoes was duly appointed by the governor of 
New York, September 20, 3863, to fill said vacancy. 



ALLOWANCE OP CEKTAIN CLAIMS. 239' 

On those dates and until he was mustered into the service as first lieutenant, 
to wit, on July 12, 1864, every company of said regiment was and continued to 
be below the minimum number prescribed by General Order No. 182 of the War 
Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Con- 
gress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 731), although the duties of second 
lieutenant and of first lieutenant devolved upon said Theodore Hoes, who on 
July 8, 1863, and September 24, 1863, assumed and performed said duties. 

3. On the said July 8, 1863, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused 
to muster the said Theodore Hoes as second lieutenant, and on September 20, 
1863, refused him muster as first lieutenant. Forty-fourth Regiment of New York 
Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its minimum 
strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of second 
lieutenant and first lieutenant until he was mustered into the service as first 
lieutenant, July 12, 1864. 

4. If the said Theodore Hoes should be deemed second lieutenant, Forty-fourth 
New York Infantry, from July 18, 1863, and first lieutenant, same regiment, 
from September 20, 1863, and entitled to the pay of those grades, .the difference 
between his pay-and allowances as a first sergeant, which he has received, and 
that of a lieutenant, without servant, to which he would have been entitled had 
he been mustered from the period from July 8, 1863, to July 11, 1864, is reported 
by the Auditor for the War Department as follows : 

Second lieutenant's pay and subsistence, July 8 to September 9, 1863__ $196. 80 

First lieutenant's pay and subsistence, September 20 to July 11, 1864 841. 87 

First lieutenant's pay and subsistence, July 12 to 16, 1864 14. 33 

Short payment • 16. 32 

Total ^ 1, 069. 32 

Less pay received as sergeant $368. 24 

Bounty paid but forfeited by reason of promotion 210. 00 

— 578. 24 

Balance due 491. OS 

(Four hundred and ninety-one dollars and eight cents.) 

By THE Court. 
Filed March 11, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 13th day of March, 3907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims^ ' 

EMILY A. LOCKWOOD, WIDOW OF HARRISON LOCK WOOD. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-103. Emily A. Lockwood, widow of Harri- 
son Lockwood, deceased, v. the United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- 
mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 27th day of March, 
1906. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 1st day of Aprils 
1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker and Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, ap- 
peared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States, 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

1. That she is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of 
Warren, in the State of New York, and is the widow of Harrison Lockwood, 
deceased. 

2. That said Harrison Lockwood, being the first sergeant of Company A, One 
hundred and fifty-sixth Regiment of New York Volunteer Infantry, was duly 
appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State of New York as second 
lieutenant thereof on August 13, 1863, and that from and after said date the 
said Harrison Lockwood assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade 
until May 27, 1864, when he was mustered in as such ; said regiment was contin- 
uously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for 
this reason, and no other, said Harrison Lockwood was refused muster and 
recognition in the grade of second lieutenant during said period. 



240 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

3. That during said period tlie said Harrison Lockwood was allowed and paid 
only the pay and allowances of a first sergeant, although he was in the contin- 
uous performance of the duties of second lieutenant. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon 
other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. Emily A. Lockwood, the claimant of this case, is a citizen of the United 
States and resident of the county of Warren in the State of New York. 

2. On August 1.3, 1S63, Harrison Lockwood was first sergeant of Company A, 
One hundred and fifty-sixth Regiment of New York Volunteer Infantry. On 
that date and until he was mustered into the service, to wit, on May 27, 1864, 
the same was and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by 
General Order No. 182 of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into 
effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., 
p. 734). 

The second lieutenant of said Company A, One hundred and fifty-sixth Regi- 
ment New York Volunteer Infantry being then and thereafter out of service in 
said grade, the duties of second lieutenant devolved upon said Harrison Lock- 
wood, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all the duties of second 
lieutenant of said Company A, One hundred and fifty-sixth Regiment New 
York Volunteer Infantry. 

The governor of the State of New York also issued to said Harrison Lock- 
wood a commission as second lieutenant, Company A, One hundred and fifty- 
sixth Regiment of New York Volunteer Infantry. 

3. On the said August 13, 1863, the mustering oflBcer then and thereafter re- 
fused to muster the said Harrison Lockwood as second lieutenant of said Com- 
pany A, One hundred and fifty-sixth Regiment of New York Volunteer Infantry, 
solely beca-use his command was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, 
although he continued to perform the duties of second lieutenant until he was 
mustered into the service as such May 27, 1864. 

4. If the said Harrison Lockwood should be deemed second lieutenant of 
Company A, One hundred and fifty-sixth Reigment of New York Volunteer 
Infantry, and entitled to the pay of that grade, the difference between his pay 
and allowances as a first sergeant, which he has received, and that of a second 
lieutenant without servant, to which he would have been entitled had he been 
mustered from the period from August 13, 1863, to May 26, 1864, would amount 
to ($484.11) four hundred and eighty -four dollars and eleven cents, as reported 
by the Auditor for the War Department, including $2.83 tax, erroneously 
deducted. 

By the Coubt. 
Filed April 1, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 2d day of April, 1907. 

[seal.] .John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk. Court of Claims. 

LUCIUS V. S. MATTISON. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-115. Lucius V. S. Mattison v. The United 

States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 27tti day of 
March, 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 22d day 
of April, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by George M. Anderson, esq., his assistant and under his direction, 
appeared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United 
States. 



ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS. 241 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of 
Oswego, in the State of New York. 

2. That he being the first sergeant of Company D, Eighty-first Regiment 
New York "^'olunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the 
governor of the State of New York as second lieutenant thereof on June 28, 
1864 ; and that from and after said date he assumed and performed all the 
duties of his said grade until November 6, 1804, when he was mustered in as 
captain ; said regiment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed 
by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, he was refused muster 
and recognition in the grade of second lieutenant during said period. 

3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allow- 
ances of a first sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance of the 
duties of second lieutenant. 

Upon the report furnished by the War and Treasury Departments, and upon 
other evidence, and upon briefs and arguments of counsel, the court makes the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. Lucius V. S. Mattison, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United 
States, and resident in the county of Oswego, in the State of New York. 

2. On June 28, 1864, the said Lucius V. S. Mattison was first sergeant of 
Company D, Eighty-first Regiment New York Volunteer Infantry. On that date 
and until he was mustered into the service, to wit, on November 6, 1864, the 
same was and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by 
General Orders, No. 182, of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying 
into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. 
L., 734). 

The second lieutenant of said Company D, Eighty-first Regiment New York 
Volunteer Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the 
duties of second lieutenant devolved upon this claimant, wha then and there- 
after assumed and performed all the duties of second lieutenant of said Com- 
pany D, Eighty-first Regiment New York Volunteer Infantry, until November 
6, 1864, when mustered in iis capt;iin. 

The governor of the State of New York also issued to this claimant a com- 
mission as second lieutenant Company D, Eighty-first Regiment New York 
Volunteer Infantry, 

3. On the said June 28, 1864, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused 
to muster this claimant as second lieutenant of said Company D, Eighty-first 
Regiment New York Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was be- 
low its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the 
duties of second lieutenant until he was mustered into the service as captjiin, 
November 6, 1864. 

4. During the period aforesaid, to wit, from June 28, 1864, to November 5, 
1864, this claimant employed one servant, not enlisted. 

5. During said period this claimant did not draw rations from the Govern- 
ment. 

6. If the said Lucius V. S. Mattison should be deemed second lieutenant of 
Company D, Eighty-first Regiment New York Volunteer Infantry, and entitled 
to the pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a 
first sergeant, which he has received, and that of a second lieutenant, to which 
he would have been entitled had he been mustered for the period from June 28, 
1864, to November 5, 1864, would amount to four hundred and ninety dollars 
and forty-four cents ($490.44), as reported by the Auditor for the War Depart- 
ment, including short payments of $186.67. 

By the Court. 
Filed April 22, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 24th day of April, 1907. ' 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

H. Rep. 543, 60-1 16 



242 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

CORNELIA P. BECKLEY AND MAUDE P. CLARK, DAUGHTERS OF 
HAMILTON S. PRESTON, 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12640-15. Cornelia P. Beckley and Maude P. 
Claili, daughters of Hamilton S. Preston, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- 
mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 
1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 18th day of 
March, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, ap- 
peared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States, 

The claimants in their petition make substantially the following allegations : 

1, That they are citizens of the United States and residents of the county of 
Delaware, in the State of New York, and the children and sole heirs of Hamil- 
ton S. Preston, deceased. 

2, That said Hamilton S, Preston, being the first sergeant of Company H, 
One hundred* and forty-fourth Regiment New York Volunteer Infantry, was 
duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State of New York as 
first lieutenant Company G, on March 16, 1864, and that from and after said 
date the said first lieutenant assumed and performed all the duties of his said 
grade until May 12, 1864, when he was mustered in as such ; said regiment was 
continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and 
for this reason, and no other, said Hamilton S. Preston was refused muster and 
recognition in the grade of first lieutenant during said period. - 

3, That during said period the said Hamilton S. Preston was allowed and 
paid only the pay and allowances of a first sergeant, although he was in the 
continuous performance of the duties of first lieutenant. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments, and upon 
other evidence and upon briefs and ai'guments of counsel, the court makes the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT, 

1. Cornelia P, Beckley and Maude P, Clark, the claimants of this case, are 
citizens of the United States and residents of the county of Delaware, in the 
State of New York. 

2. On March 16, 1864, Hamilton S, Preston was first sergeant of Company Hf 
One hundred and forty-fourth Regiment of New York Volunteer Infantry, On 
that date and until he was mustered into the service, to wit, on May 12, 1864, 
as first lieutenant Company G, the same was and continued to be below the 
minimum number prescribed by General Order No. 182 of the War Department 
of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved 
March 3, 1863. (12 Stat, L., p, 734.) 

The first lieutenant of said Company G, One hundred and forty-fourth Regi- 
ment New York Volunteer Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in 
said grade, the duties of first lieutenant devolved upon said Hamilton S. Preston, 
who then and thereafter assumed and perfoi-med all the duties of first lieuten- 
ant of said Company G, One hundred and forty-fourth Regiment New York 
Volunteer Infantry, until mustered in as such, May 12, 1864, 

The govex'nor of the State of New York also issued to said Hamilton S, Pres- 
ton a commission as first lieutenant Company G, One hundred and forty-fourth 
Regiment New York Volunteer Infantry, 

3, On the said March 16, 1864, the mustering officer then and thereafter re- 
fused to muster the said Hamilton S, Preston as first lieutenant of said Com- 
pany G, One hundred and forty-fourth Regiment New York Volunteer Infantry, 
solely because his command was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, 
although he continued to perform the duties of first lieutenant until he was 
mustered into the service as such. May 12, 1864, 

4, If the said Hamilton S. Preston should be deemed first lieutenant of Com- 
pany G, One hundred and forty-fourth Regiment New York Volunteer Infantry 
and entitled to the pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allow- 
ances as a first sergeant which he has received, and that of a first lieutenant 
without servant to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered 



ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 243 

from tho period from Marcli 16, 1864, to May 11, 1864, would aomunt to one 
hundred and four dollars and five cents ($104.05), as reported by the Auditor 
for the War Department. 

By the Coukt. 
Filed March 18, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

lest this 19th day of March, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

ALICE A. SHELDON, WIDOW OF ALLEN SHELDON. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-177. Alice A. Sheldon, widow of Allen 
Sheldon, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-eutitled case was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of 
May, 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 1st day of 
April, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker and Jones appeared for the claimant and the Attorney- 
General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, ap- 
peared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

1. That she is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of 
Columbia, in the State of New York, and is the widow of Allen Sheldon, de- 
ceased. 

2. That said Allen Sheldon, being a private of Company K, One hundred and 
twenty-eighth Regiment of New York Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed 
or commissioned by the governor of the State of New York as second lieutenant 
thereof on August 21, 1863 ; and that from and after said date the said Allen 
Sheldon assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until December 
15, 1863, when he was mustered out as a private; said regiment was contin- 
uously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for 
this reason, and no other, said Allen Sheldon was refused muster and recogni- 
tion in the grade of second lieutenant during said period. 

3. That during said period the said Allen Sheldon was allowed and paid only 
the pay and allowances of a private, although he was in the continuous per- 
formance of the duties of second lieutenant. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments, and upon 
other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. Alice A. Sheldon, the claimant of this case, is a citizen of the United 
States, and a resident of the county of Columbia in the State of New York. 

2. On August 21, 1863, Allen Sheldon was a private of Company K, One hun- 
dred and twenty-eighth Regiment of New York Volunteer Infantry. On that 
date and until he was mustered out of the service, to wit, on December 15, 1863, 
the same was and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by 
General Order No. 182, of the War Department, of June 20, 1863, carrying into 
effect section 20 of the act of Congress, approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., 
p. 734). 

The second lieutenant of said Company K, One hundred and twenty-eighth 
Regiment New York Volunteer Infantry, being then and thereafter out of serv- 
ice in said grade, the duties of second lieutenant devolved upon said Allen Shel- 
don, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all the duties of second 
lieutenant of said Company K, One hundred and twenty-eighth Regiment New 
York Volunteer Infantry. 

The governor of the State of New York also issued to said Allen Sheldon 
a commission as second lieutenant Company K, One hundred and twenty-eighth 
Regiment of New York Volunteer Infantry. 

3. On the said August 22, 1863, the mustering officer then and thereafter 
refused to muster the said Allen Sheldon as second lieutenant of said Company 
K, One hundred and twenty-eighth Regiment of New York Volunteer Infantry, 



244 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

solely because his command was below its minimum strengtb, as aforesaid, 
although he continued to perform the duties of second lieutenant until he was 
mustered out of the service as private, December 15, 1863. 

4. During the period aforesaid, to wit, from August 22, 1863, to December 
15, 1863, there is no evidence that he employed a servant not enlisted. 

5. Dxiring said period there is no evidence that he did not draw rations from 
the Government. 

6. If the said Allen Sheldon should be deemed second lieutenant of Company 
K, One hundred and twenty-eighth Regiment of New York Volunteer Infantry, 
and entitled to the pay of that grade, the difference beween his pay and allow- 
ances as a private, which he has received, and that of a second lieutenant, to 
which he would have been entitled had he been mustered from the period from 
August 22, 1863, to December 15, 1863, would amount to $274.54, as reported by 
the Auditor for the War Department. 

7. Income tax, if to be deducted, would amount to $9.94, leaving a balance of 
two hiandred and sixty-four dollars and sixty cents ($264.60). 

Br THE COUKT. 

Filed April 1, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 2d day of April, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

NORTH CAROLINA. 

E. M. ALLISON, ADMINISTRATOR. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 2525. Estate of Francis Allison v. The United 

States.] 

This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or 
furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the 
late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary in- 
quiry, finds that Francis Allison, deceased, the person alleged to have furnished 
such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, 
was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. 

By the Couet. 

Filed April 16, 1906. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 2525. E. M. Allison, administrator of estate of 
Francis Allison, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores, alleged to have 
been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their 
use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to 
the court bj'- the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on 
the 6th day of March, 1SS8. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 16th day of April, 1906, found that 
the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they 
were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United 
States throughout said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 7th day of May, 1906. 

Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Mal- 
colm A. Coles, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the de- 
fense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations : 

That lie is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of 
Transylvania, State of North Carolina; that petitioner is the duly appointed, 
qualified, and acting administrator of the estate of Francis Allison, deceased; 
that during the late civil war said decedent was a citizen of the United States 
and a resident of said county of Transylvania, State of North Carolina; that 
during said war the United Slates military forces, under proper authority, 
took from said decedent for the use of the United States Army quartermaster 
stores and commissary supplies of the kinds and values below stated, to wit : 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 245 

Taken from farm of decedent near Davidsons River on the French Broad River, 
Transylvania County, State of North Carolina, hj troops commanded by Col- 
onel Brown and a Colonel Mays (or Mayse or May), of the army of General 
Stoneman about the last of April or in the month of May, 1865 : 

1 bay horse $100 

3 mules 400 

300 pounds of bacon 60 

50 bushels of corn 50 

Total 610 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel upon both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

During the war for the suppression of the rebellion, the military forces of the 
United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took from claim- 
ant's decedent in Transylvania County, N. C, property as above described, which 
at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of five hundred 
and fifty dollars ($550). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

By THE Court. 

Filed May 14, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 31st day of May, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

WILLIAM COHEN, ADMINISTRATOR OF ESADORE COHEN. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 6920. William Cohen, administrator of Isadore 
Cohen, deceased, v. The United States.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by 
or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary 
inquiry, finds that Isadore Cohen, deceased, the person alleged to have fur- 
nished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have 
been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said 
war. 



By the Court. 



Filed January 3, 1905. 



[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 6920. William Cohen, administrator of the 
estate of Isadore Cohen, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claimant in the above-entitled case, for supplies or stores alleged to have 
been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for 
their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was trans- 
mitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Repre- 
sentatives on the 19th day of February, 1899. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 3d day of January, 1905, found 
that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom 
they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the 
United States throughout said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 21st day of November, 
1905. 

Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
Franklin W. Collins, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations : 

That he is a citizen of the United States, now residing in the city and county 
of New York, State of New York ; that he is the duly, appointed, qualified, and 
acting administrator of the estate of Esadore Cohen, deceased, late a resident 



"246 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIIT CLAIMS. 

of tlie county of Edgecombe, State of North Carolina, and formerly a resident of 
the State of Texas; that after the surrender of General Lee, to wit, in June, 
1865, the United States military forces, under proper authority, took from said 
decedent and converted to the use of the United States Arniy, quartermaster 
stores and commissary supplies of the kinds and values below stated, to wit : 

3 wagons, at $200 each $600 

16 mules, at $125 each 2, 000 

2 horses, at $125 each • 250 

18 sets of harness, at $12.50 each 225 

Total 3, 075 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the folowing 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

There was taken from the claimant's decedent in Brownsville, State of Texas, 
by the military forces of the United States, for the use of the Army, by proper 
authority, property of the kind above described, which at the time and place of 
taking was reasonably worth the sum of five hundred and thirty-two dollars 
($532). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

By the Coukt. 

Filed December 4, 1905. 

True copy. 

Test this 19th day of December, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistmit Clerk Court of Claims. 

LOUISA C. SMITH, ADMINISTRATRIX OF ENOS CASE. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 9152. Estate of Bnos Case, deceased, v. The 

' United States.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by 
or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary 
inquiry, finds that Enos Case, deceased, the person alleged to have furnished 
such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, 
was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed December 9, 1901. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 9152. Louise C. Smith, administratrix of estate 
of Enos Case, deceased, v. The United States.] 

statement of case. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies, or stores, alleged to have 
been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their 
use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted 
to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives 
on the 11th day of July, 1S92. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 9tli daj^ of December, 1901, found 
that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom 
they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the 
United States throughout said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 21st day of Octo- 
ber, 1907. 

Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by S. S. 
Ashbaugh, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 



ALLOWANCE OE CEKTAIN CLAIMS. . 24 Y 

The claimaut in her petition lualces the following allegations : 
That she is a citizen of the United States, and is the duly appointed, qualified, 
and acting administratrix of the estate of Enos Case, deceased, of Greene 
County, N. C. ; that during the late civil war the military forces of the United 
States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took property belonging 
to her decedent of the kinds and values described below : 

Taken in or about March, 1865, by General Sherman's command : 

1 horse i— $200. 00 

1 buggy and harness ^ 125.00 

Fowls 6. 25 

Total 331.25 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDING OF FACT. 

During the late civil war the military forces of the United States, by proper 
authority, for the use of the Army, took from the claimant's decedent in Greene 
County, N. C, one horse of the reasonable value at the time and place of taking 
of one hundred and twenty dollars ($120), for which no payment appears to 
have been made. 

The other items alleged in the petition are abandoned by claimant. Hence no 
allowance is made for them. 

By the Court. 

Filed October 28, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 19th day of December, 1907. 

[SEAL.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

NORTH DAKOTA. 

MARTHA A. MULLERY. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10746. Martha A. MuUery, widow of James W. 
Mullery, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE.' 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- 
mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 
1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 7th day of 
January, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker «& Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-Gen- 
eral, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared 
for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

1. That she is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of 
Stutsman, in the State of North Dakota, and is the widow of James W. Mullery, 
deceased. 

2. That said James W. Mullery, being the sergeant-major of Company K, 
Fifteenth Regiment of New Jersey Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or 
commissioned by the governor of the State of New Jersey as first lieutenant 
of Company B on February 0, 1865, and that from and after said date the said 
decedent assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until July 11, 
1865, when he was mustered out as first lieutenant. Said regiment was con- 
tinuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and 
for this reason, and no other, said decedent was refused muster and recognition 
in the grade of first lieutenant during said period. 

3. That during said period the said decedent was allowed and paid only the 
pay and allowances of a sergeant-major, although he was in the continuous 
performance of the duties of first lieutenant. 



-^48 ALLOWANCE OF OEKTAIN CLAIMS. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon 
other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. Martha A. Mullery, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United 
States and resident of the county of Stutsman, in the State of North Dakota. 

2. On February 9, 1865, decedent was sergeant-major of Company K, Fifteenth 
Regiment of New Jersey Volunteer Infantry. On that date he was promoted 
first lieutenant of Company E, same regiment, and until he was mustered into 
the service, to wit, on March 27, 1865, the same was and continued to be below 
the minimum number prescribed by General Orders, No. 182, of the War 
Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of 
Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., 734), 

The first lieutenant of said Company E, Fifteenth Regiment New Jersey 
"Volunteer Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the 
duties of first lieutenant devolved upon said decedent, who then and there- 
after assumed and performed all the duties of first lieutenant of said Company 
E, Fifteenth Regiment New Jersey Volunteer Infantry, until mustered out July 
11, 1865. 

The governor of the State of New Jersey also issued to said decedent a 
commission as first lieutenant. Company E, Fifteenth Regiment of New Jersey 
Volunteer Infantry. 

3. On the said February 9, 1865, the mustering officer then and thereafter 
refused to muster the said decedent as first lieutenant of said Company E, Fif- 
teenth Regiment of New Jersey Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command 
was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to per- 
form the duties of first lieutenant until he was mustered into the service as 
such March 27, 1865. 

4. During the period aforesaid, to wit, from February 9, 1865, to March 27, 
1865, the said decedent employed no servant. 

5. During said period the said decedent did draw rations from the Gov- 
ernment. 

6. If the said decedent should be deemed first lieutenant of Company E, Fif- 
teenth Regiment of New Jersey Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay of 
that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a sergeant-major, 
which he has received, and that of a first lieutenant, to which he would have 
been entitled had he been mustered from the period from February 9, 1865, 
to March 27, 1865, would amount to $260.35 without any deduction being made 
for income tax, as reported by the Auditor for the War Department, including 
travel allowances, $19.50, also reported to be due. 

7. Income tax, if to be deducted, would amount to $11.30, leaving balance of 
two hundred and forty-nine dollars and five cents ($249.05). 

By the Court. 
Filed January 7, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the Court. 

Test this 9th day of January, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

OHIO. 
HENRY L. BIDDLE. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-7. Henry L. Biddle v. The United States.] 

statement of case. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of 
May, 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 1st day of 
April, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant and the Attorney- 
General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, ap- 
peared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 



ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 249 

The claimant in liis petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of 
Montgomery, in the State of Ohio. 

2. That he, being the first sergeant of Company H, One hundred and tenth 
Regiment of Ohio Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by 
the governor of the State of Ohio as second lieutenant thereof on December 24, 

1864, and that from and after said date he assumed and performed all the 
duties of his said grade until June 30, 1865, when he was mustered out as first 
sergeant; said regiment was continuously below the minimum number pre- 
scribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, he was re- 
fused muster and recognition in the grade of during said period. 

3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allow- 
ances of a first sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance of the 
duties of second lieutenant. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon 
other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. Henry L. Biddle, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States 
and resident in the county of Montgomery, in the State of Ohio. 

2. On December 24, 1864, the said Henry L. Biddle was first sergeant of Com- 
pany H, One hundred and tenth Regiment Ohio Volunteer Infantry. On that 
date and until he was mustered out of the service, to wit, on June 30, 1865, the 
same was and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by Gen- 
eral Orders, No. 182, of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into 
effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., 
734). 

The second lieutenant of said Company H, One hundred and tenth Regiment 
Ohio Volunteer Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, 
the duties of second lieutenant devolved upon this claimant, who then and 
thereafter assumed and performed all the duties of second lieutenant of said 
Company H, One hundred and tenth Regiment Ohio Volunteer Infantry, until 
June 30, 1865. 

The governor of the State of Ohio also issued to this claimant a commission 
as second lieutenant Company H, One hundred and tenth Regiment Ohio Vol- 
unteer Infantry. 

3. On the said December 24, 1864, the mustering officer then and thereafter 
refused to muster this claimant as second lieutenant of said Company H, One 
hundred and tenth Regiment Ohio Volunteer Infantry, solely because his com- 
mand was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to 
perform the duties of second lieutenant until he was mustered out of the serv- 
ice as first sergeant, June 30, 1865. 

4. During the period aforesaid, to wit, from December 24, 1864, to June 30, 

1865, this claimant employed no servant not enlisted. 

5. During said period this claimant did draw rations from the Government. 

6. If the said Henry L. Biddle should be deemed second lieutenant of Com- 
pany H, One hundred and tenth Regiment Ohio Volunteer Infantry, and en- 
titled to the pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances 
as a first sergeant which he has received, and that of a second lieutenant to 
which he would have been entitled had he been mustered for the period from 
December 24, 1864, to June 30, 1865, would amount to $362.44 (three hundred 
and sixty-two dollars and forty-four cents), as reported by the Auditor for the 
War Department. 

By the Couet. 
Filed April 1, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 2d day of April, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



250 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

AMANDA W. CLANCY, WIDOW OF CHARLES W. CLANCY. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-24. Amanda W. Clancy, widow of Charles 
W. Clancy, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- 
mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of 
May, 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 11th day 
of March, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, ap- 
peared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

1. That she is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of 
Jefferson, in the State of Ohio, and is the widow of Charles W. Clancy, deceased. 

2. That said Charles W. Clancy, being lieutenant-colonel Fifty-second Regi- 
ment Ohio 'N^olunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the 
governor of the State of Ohio as colonel thereof to fill a vacancy caused July 17, 
1864, by death; and that from and after said date the said Charles W. Clancy 
assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until June 20, 1865, 
when he was mustered out as lieutenant-colonel ; said regiment was continu- 
ously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for 
this reason, and no other, said Charles W. Clancy was refused muster and rec- 
ognition in the grade of colonel during said period. 

3. That during said period the said Charles W. Clancy was allowed and paid 
only the pay and allowances of a lieutenant-colonel, although he was in the 
continuous performance of the duties of colonel. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments, and upon 
other evidence, and upon briefs and arguments of counsel, the court makes the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. Amanda W. Clancy, the claimant of this case, is a citizen of the United 
States and resident of the county of Jefferson, in the State of Ohio. 

2. On July 18, 1864, Charles W. Clancy was lieutenant-colonel Fifty-second 
Regiment Ohio Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was mustered 
out of service, to wit, on June 20, 1865, the same was and continued to be below 
the minimum number prescribed by General Order No. 182 of the War Depart- 
ment of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the Act of Congress ap- 
proved March 3, 1863. (12 Stat. L., 734.) 

The colonel of said Fifty-second Regiment Ohio Volunteers died July 17, 1864, 
and being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of colonel 
devolved upon said Charles W. Clancy, who then and thereafter assumed and 
performed all the duties of colonel of said Fifty-second Regiment Ohio Volunteer 
Infantry. 

The governor of the State of Ohio also issued to said Charles W. Clancy a 
commission as colonel of Fifty-second Regiment Ohio Volunteer Infantry. 

3. On the said July 18, 1864,' the mustering officer then and thereafter refused 
to muster the said Charles W. Clancy as colonel of said Fifty-second Regiment 
Ohio Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its minimum 
strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of colonel 
until he was mustered out of the service as lieutenant-colonel. 

4. If the said Charles W. Clancy should be deemed colonel of Fifty-second 
Regiment Ohio Volunteer Infantry and entitled to the pay of that grade the 
difference between his pay and allowances as a lieutenant-colonel, which he has 
received, and that of a colonel, to which he would have been entitled had he 
been mustered from the period from July IS, 1864, to June 20, 1865, would 
amount to three hundred and seventy-four dollars and eighty-eight cents 

(374.88), as reported by the Auditor for the War Department, including a 
short payment of $32 as captain from August 1, 1862, and $1.35 income tax on 
remuster. 

By THE Court. 
Filed March 11, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 13th day of March, 1907. 

[SEAL.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 251 

BARTON A. HOLLAND. 

[In the Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10706. Barton A. Holland v. The United 

States.] 

STATEMENT «F CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- 
mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of 
May, 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 3d day of 
January, 1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker &, Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, 
appeared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United 
States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of 
Hardin in the State of Ohio. 

2. That he, being the captain of Company A, One hundred and eightieth 
Regiment of Ohio Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by 
the governor of the State of Ohio as major thereof on March 29, 1865, and that 
from and after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said 
grade until July 25, 1S65, when he was mustered out as a captain. Said regi- 
ment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regu- 
lation, and for this reason and no other he was refused muster and recognition 
in the grade of major during said period. 

3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allow- 
ances of a captain, although he was in the continuous performance of the 
duties of major. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury DepartAents, and upon 
other evidence, and upon briefs and arguments of counsel, the court makes the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. Barton A. Holland, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United 
States and resident in the county of Hardin in the State of Ohio. 

II. On March 29, 1865, the said claimant was captain of Company A, One 
hundred and eightieth Regiment Ohio Volunteer Infantry. On that date, and 
until he was finally discharged the service, to wit, on July 25, 1865, the same 
was, and continued to be, below the minimum number prescribed by General 
Orders, No. 182, of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into efCect 
section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 734). 

The major of said One hundred and eightieth Regiment Ohio Volunteer In- 
fantry being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of. 
major devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and per- 
formed all the duties of major of said One hundred and eightieth Regiment 
Ohio Volunteer Infantry until final discharge July 25, 1865. 

The governor of the State of Ohio also issued to this claimant a commission 
as major, One hundred and eightieth Regiment Ohio Volunteer Infantry. 

III. On the said March 29, 1865, the mustering officer then and thereafter 
refused to muster this claimant as major of said One hundred and eightieth 
Regiment Ohio Volunteer Infantry solely because his command was below its 
minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties 
of major until he was mustered out of the service as captain as aforesaid. 

IV. During the period aforesaid, to wit, from March 29, 1865, to July 25, 
1865, this claimant employed two servants not enlisted. 

V. During said period this claimant did not draw rations from the Govern- 
ment. 

VI. If the said Barton A. Holland should be deemed major of the One 
hundred and eightieth Regiment Ohio Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the 
pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a captain, 
which he has received,- and that of a major, to which he would have been enti- 
tled had he been mustered for the period from March 29, 1865, to July 25, 1865, 
would amount to $182.82, without any deduction for difference in income tax, 
as reported by the Auditor for the War Department. 



252 AijLowAisrcE of cebtain claims. 

VII. The difference iu income tax would amount to $9.14, and if to be 
deducted, would leave $173.68 (one hundred and seventy-three dollars and 
sixty-eight cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed January 15, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 17th day of January, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

GEORGE W. NORTHUP. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10,758. George W. Northup v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of 
May, 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits ou the 7th day of 
January, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant and the Attorney- 
General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, ap- 
peared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of 
Montgomery, in the State of Ohio. 

2. That he, being the lieutenant-colonel of Twenty-third Regiment of Ken- 
tucky Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the gov- 
ernor of the State of Kentucky as colonel thereof on November 16, 1S64, and 
that from and after October 31, 1864, he assumed and performed all the duties 
of his said grade until February 1, 1866, when he was mustered out as lieuten- 
ant-colonel. Said regiment was continuously below the minimum number pre- 
scribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, he was refused 
muster and recognition in the grade of colonel during said period. 

3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allow- 
ances of a lieutenant-colonel, although he was in the continuous performance 
of the duties of colonel. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Depai'tments, and upon 
other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel, the court makes the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. George W. Northup, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United 
States and resident in the county of Montgomery, in the State of Ohio. 

2. On October 31, 1864, the said George W. Northup was lieutenant-colonel 
of Twenty-third Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry. On that date and 
until he was mustered out of the service, to wit, on February 1, 1866, the same 
was and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General 
Orders, No. 182, of the War Department, of June 20, 1863. carrying into effect 
section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. U., 734). 

The colonel of said Tweqjty-third Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry 
being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of colonel 
devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and performed 
all the duties of colonel of said Twenty-third Regiment Kentucky Volunteer 
Infantry until he was mustered out as lieutenant-colonel February, 1866. 

The governor of the State of Kentucky also issued to this claimant a com- 
mission as colonel Twenty-third Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry. 

3. On the said October 31, 1864, the mustering officer then and thereafter 
refused to muster this claimant as colonel of said Twenty-third Regiment Ken- 
tucky Volunter Infantry, solely because his command was below its minimum 
strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of colonel 
until he was mustered out of the service as lieutenant-colonel, February 1, 1866. 

4. If the said George W. Northup should be deemed colonel of Twenty-third- 
Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry and entitled to the pay of that grade, 
the difference between his pay and allowances as a lieutenant-colonel, which he 
has received, and that of a colonel to which he would have been entitled had 
he been mustered for the period from October 31, 1864, to February 1, 1866, 



ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. ' 253 

would amount to $482.40, without any deduction for income tax, as reported by 
the Auditor for the War Department. 

5. Income tax, if to be deducted, would amount to $24.12, leaving a balance 
of four hundred and fifty-eight dollars and twenty-eight cents (458.28). 

By the Court. 

Filed January 7, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 9th day of January, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

DAVID SKEELES. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-167. David Skeeles v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- 
mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 
1902. The case was brought to -a hearing on its merits on the 21st day of 
January, 1907. 

Messrs. Peunebaker & Jones appeared for the clainiaut and the Attorney-Gen- 
eral, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared 
for the defense and the protection of the interests of the "United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substanially the following allegations: 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of 
Carroll, in the State of Ohio. 

2. That he, being the major of Eightieth Regiment of Ohio Volunteer Infantry, 
was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State of Ohio as 
lieutenant-colonel thereof on January 4, 1864; and that from and after said 
date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until December 
20, 1864, when he was mustered out as major; said regiment was continuously 
below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this rea- 
son, and no other, he was refused muster and recognition in the grade of lieuten- 
ant-colonel during said period. 

3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allow- 
ances of a major, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties 
of lieutenant-colonel. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon 
other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. David Skeeles, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States 
and resident in the county of Carroll, in the State of Ohio. 

2. On January 4, 1864, the said David Skeeles was major Eightieth Regiment 
Ohio Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was mustered out of the 
service, to wit, on December 20, 1864, the same was and continued to be below 
the minimum number prescribed by General Order No. 182, of the War Depart- 
ment, of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress 
approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 734). 

The lieutenant-colonel of said Eightieth Regiment Ohio Volunteer Infantry 
being then and thereafter promoted colonel, the duties of lieutenant-colonel 
devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and performed 
all the duties of lieutenant-colonel of said Eightieth Regiment Ohio Volunteer 
Infantry until mustered out as major, December 20, 1864. 

The governor of the State of Ohio also issued to this claimant a commission 
as lieutenant-colonel Eightieth Regiment Ohio Volunteer Infantry. 

3. On the said January 4, 1864, the mustering ofiicer then and thereafter re- 
fused to muster this claimant as lieutenant-colonel of said Eightieth Regiment 
Ohio Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its minimum 
strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of lieutenant- 
colonel until he was mustered out of the service as major. 

4. If the said David Skeeles should be deemed lieutenant-colonel of Eightieth 
Regiment Ohio Volunteer Infantry and entitled to the pay of that grade, the 



254 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

difference between his pay and allowances as a major which he has i-eceived, 
and that of a lieutenant-colonel to which he would have been entitled had he 
been mustered for the period from January 4, 1864, to December 20, 1864, would 
amount to $245.85, without any deduction for income tax, as reported by the 
Auditor for the War Department, including a short payment of 07 cents. 

5. Income tax, if to be deducted, would amount to $9.99, leaving a balance of 
two hundred and thirty-five dollars and eighty-six cents ($235.86). 

By the Court. 

Filed January 21, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 23d day of January, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph. 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

ELLEN R. SMITH. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10792. Ellen R. Smith, widow James R. Smith, deceased, v. 

The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the coiut by the Committee 
on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The 
case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 13th day of November, 1905. 

Messrs. Pennebaker and Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by James- A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

1. That she is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of Lucas, 
in the State of Ohio, and is the widow of James R. Smith, deceased. 

2. That said James R. Smith, being the first sergeant of Company K, Twenty-fifth . 
Regiment of Ohio Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the 
governor of the State of Ohio as second lieutenant thereof on September 4, 1865; and 
that from and after said date the said James R. Smith assumed and performed all the 
duties of his said grade until June 18, 1866, when he was mustered out as fii'st sergeant; 
said regiment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and 
regulation, and for this reason and no other said James R. Smith was refused muster 
and recognition in the grade of second lieutenant during said period. 

3. That during said period the said James R. Smith was allowed and paid only the 
pay and allowances of a first sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance 
of the duties of second lieutenant. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments, and upon other 
evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel, the court makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. Ellen R. Smith is the widow of James R. Smith, deceased, and the claimant in 
this case, and is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of Lucas, in 
the State of Ohio. 

2. On September 4, 1865, James R. Smith was fii'st sergeant of Company K, Twenty- 
fifth Regiment of Ohio Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was mustered 
out the service, to wit, on June 18, 1866, the same was and continued to be below 
the minimum number prescribed by General Orders, No. 182, of the War Department, 
of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 
1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 734). 

The second lieutenant of said Company K, Twenty-fifth Regiment Ohio Volunteer 
Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said gi-ade, the duties of second 
lieutenant devolved upon said James R. Smith, who then and thereafter assumed and 
performed all the duties of second lieutenant of said Company K, Twenty-fiith Regi- 
ment Ohio Volunteer Infantry, until final discharge June 18, 1866. 

The governor of the State of Ohio also issued to said James R. Smith a commission 
as second lieutenant. Company K, Twenty-fifth Regiment of Ohio Volunteer Infantry. 

3. On the said September 4, 1865, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused 
to muster the said James R. Smith as second lieutenant of said Company K, Twenty- 
fifth Regiment of Ohio Volunteer Infantiy, solely because his command was below 
its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of 
second lieutenant until he was mustered out of the service as first sergeant. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 255 

4. During the period aforesaid, to wit, from September 4, 18fi5, to June 18, 1866, 
the said James R. Smith employed no servant not enlisted. 

5. During said period the said James R. Simith did draw rations from the 
Government. 

6. If the said James R. Smith should be deemed second lieutenant of Company K, 
Twenty-fifth Regiment of Ohio Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay of that 
grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a fu-st sergeant which he has 
received, and that of a second lieutenant, to which he would have been entitled had 
he been mustered from the period from September 4, 1865, to June 18, 1866, would 
amount to $514.71, without deduction of $25 bounty and $27.77 income tax, as reported 
by the Auditor for the War Department. 

7. Income tax would amount to $27.77; if to be deducted would leave $486.94. 

By the Court. 
Filed November 10, 1905. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 6th day of December, 1905. 

[seal.] , John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

OKLAHOMA. 

GEORGE W. CLARK. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-21. George W. Clark v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Committee 
on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The case 
was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 18th day of March, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker and Jones appeared for the claimant and the Attorney-General, 
by James A. Tanner, esq. , his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the southern district in the 
Indian Territory. 

2. That he, being the first sergeant of Company I, Sixth Regiment of Iowa Volunteer 
Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State of I(5wa as 
first lieutenant thereof on October 24, 1863; and that from and after said date he 
assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until December 19, 1863, when 
he was mustered in as such; said regiment was continuously below the minimum num- 
ber prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, he was refused 
muster and recognition in the gi-ade of first lieutenant during said period. 

3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances of a 
first sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of first lieu- 
tenant. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other 
evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following 

riNDINGS OF FACT. 

1. George W. Clark, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and 
resident in the southern district of Indian TeiTitory. 

2. On October 24, 1863, the said George W. Clark was first sergeant of Company I, 
Sixth Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was mustered 
into the service, to wit, on December 19, 1863, the same was and continued to be below 
the minimum number prescribed by General Order No. 182 of the War Department of 
June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 
1863. (12 Stat. L., p. 734.) 

The first lieutenant of said Company I, Sixth Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry, 
being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of first lieutenant 
devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all the 
duties of first lieutenant of said Company I, Sixth Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry. 
_ The governor of the State of Iowa also issued to this claimant a commission as first 
lieutenant Company I, Sixth Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry. 



256 AXiiOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

3. On the said October 24, 1863, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to 
muster this claimant as first lieutenant of said Company I, Sixth Regiment Iowa Vol- 
unteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its minimum strength, as 
aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of first lieutenant untU he was 
mustered into the service as such December 19, 1863. 

4. If the said George W. Clark should be deemed first lieutenant of Company I, 
Sixth Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay of that grade, the 
difference between his pay and allowances as a first sergeant, which he has received, 
and that of a first lieutenant, to which he would have been entitled had he been mus- 
tered, for the period from October 24, 1863, to December 18, 1863, would amount to 
$106.26 (one hundred and six dollars and twenty-six cents), as reported by the Auditor 
for the War Department. 

By the Court. 
FUed March 18, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 19th day of March, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

ROBERT C. COZINE. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10655. Robert C. Cozine, son of John S. Cozine, 
deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of 
May, 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 6th day of 
November, 1905. 

Messrs. Pennebakc-r and Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-Gen- 
eral, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident of the city of Eda, in the 
Territory of Oklahoma, and is the son of John S. Cozine, deceased. 

2. That said John S. Cozine, being the first sergeant of Company E, Tenth Regi- 
ment of Kentucky Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or co mm issioned by the 
governor of the State of Kentucky as second lieutenant thereof on September 22, 
1863; and that from and after said date the said John S. Cozine assumed and per- 
formed all the duties of his said gi-ade untU December 6, 1864, when he was mustered 
out as first sergeant; said regiment was continuously below the minimum number 
prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, said John S. 
Cozine was refused muster and recognition in the grade of second lieutenant during 
said period. 

3. That diuing said period the said John S. Cozine was allowed and paid only the 
pay and allowances of a first sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance 
of the duties of second lieutenant. 

Upon the reports fiunished by the Wai- and Treasury Departments and upon other 
evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel, the court makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. Robert C. Cozine, son of John S. Cozine, deceased, the claimant in this case, is a 
citizen of the United States and resident of the city of Eda, in the Territory of Okla- 
homa, -r-i m 

2. On September 22, 1863, John S. Cozine was first sergeant of Company E, Tenth 
Regiment of Kentucky Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was mus- 
tered out the service, to wit, on December 6, 3864, the same was and continued to be 
below the minimum number prescribed by General Orders, No. 182, of the War 
Department, of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress 
approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 734). 

The second lieutenant of said Company E, Tenth Regiment Kentucky Volunteer 
Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of second 
lieutenant devolved upon said John S. Cozine, who then and thereafter assumed and 
performed all the duties of second lieutenant of said Company E, Tenth Regiment 
Kentucky Volunteer Infantry, until December 6, 1864, when he was finally discharged. 



ALLOWANCE OP CERTAUST CLAIMS. 257 

The governor of the State of Kentucky also issued to said John S. Cozine a commis- 
sion as second lieutenant, Company E, Tenth Regiment of Kentucky Volunteer 
Infantry. 

3. On the said September 22, 1863, the miistering officer then and thereafter refused 
to muster the said John S. Cozine as second lieutenant of said Company E, Tenth 
Regiment of Kentucky Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below 
its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of 
second lieutenant until he was mustered out of the service as first sergeant. 

4. During the period aforesaid, to wit, from September 22, 1863, to December 6, 
1864, the said John S. Cozine employed no servant not enlisted. 

5. During said period the said John "S. Cozine did draw rations from the Govern- 
ment. 

6. If the said John S. Cozine should be deemed second lieutenant of Company E, 
Tenth Regiment of Kentucky Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay of that 
grade, the difference between his pay and allowance as a first sergeant, which he has 
received, and that of a second lieutenant, to which he would have been entitled had 
he been mustered from the period from September 22, 1863, to December 6, 1864, 
would amount to $520.22, without making deduction for income tax, as reported by 
the Auditor for the War Department. 

7. Income tax, amounting to $17.48, if to be deducted, would leave him $502.74. 

Filed November 1, 1905. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 6th day of December, 1905. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

OREGON. 

JOHN E. BUTLER. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10638. John E. Butler v. The United States.] 
STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Committee 
on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The 
case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 3d day of January, 1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by James A. Tanner, esq.., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and' resident in the county of Lane, in 
the State of Oregon. 

2. That he, being the first sergeant of Company G, Twenty-seventh Regiment of 
Iowa Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or 'commissioned by the Governor of 
the State of Iowa as second lieutenant thereof to take rank from February 4, 1865, 
and that from and after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said 
grade until June 21, 1865, when he was promoted and mustered in as first lieutenant. 
Said regiment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and 
regulation, and for this reason, and no other, he was refused muster and recognition 
in the grade of second lieutenant during said period. 

3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances 
of a first sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of 
second lieutenant. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other 
evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. John E. Butler, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and 
resident in the county of Lane, in the State of Oregon. 

2. On February 4, 1865, the said claimant was first sergeant of Company G, Twenty- 
seventh Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was mustered 
into the service as first lieutenant— to wit, on June 21, 1865— the same was and con- 
tinued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Orders, No. 182, of 

H. Rep. 54.3, 60-1 17 



258 AI.LOWAXCE OP CEETAIN CLAIMS. 

the War Department, of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of 
Congress approved March 3, 1863. (12 Stat. L., 734.) 

The second lieutenant of said Company G, Twenty-seventh Regiment Iowa Volun- 
teer Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of 
second lieutenant devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and 
performed all the duties of second lieutenant of said Company G, Twenty-seventh 
Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry, until June 21, 1865, when promoted and mus- 
tered as first lieutenant. 

The governor of the State of Iowa also issued to this claimant a commission as second 
lieutenant Company G, Twenty-seventh Regiment Volunteer Infantry. 

3. On the said February 4. 1865, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused 
to muster this claimant as second lieutenant of said Company G, Twenty-seventh 
Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its mini- 
mum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of second 
lieutenant until he was mustered into the service as first lieutenant, as aforesaid. 

4. During the period aforesaid, to wit, from February 4, 1865, to June 21, 1865, 
this claimant employed no servant not enlisted. 

5. During said period this claimant did draw rations from the Government. 

6. If the said John E. Butler should be deemed second lieutenant of Company G, 
Twenty-seventh Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay of that 
grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a first sergeant, which he 
has received, and that of a second lieutenant, to which he would have been entitled 
had he been inustered for the period from February 4, 1865, to June 21, 1865, would 
amount to $417.31, without making any deduction for income tax, as reported by the 
Auditor for the War Department. 

7. Income tax would amount to $18.31, and if to be deducted would leave $399 
(tliree hundred and ninety- nine dollars). 

By the Court. 
Filed January 8, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 17th day of January, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

PENNSYLVANIA. 

WILLIAM ASHWORTH AND ADAM I. ASHWORTH. 

[Court of Claims Congressional, No. 10614. William Astwortli and Adam I. Ashworth, heirs of 
■James Ashworth, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE.^ 
\ 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the oeurt by the Committee 
on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The 
case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 7th day of January, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, 
by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and the protection of the interests of the LTnited States. 

The claimants in their petition make substantially the following allegations; 

1. That they are citizens of the United States and residents of the city of Phila- 
delphia, in the State of Pennsylvania, and are the brothers and sole heirs of James 
Ashworth, deceased. 

2. That said James Ashworth, being the major of the One hundred and twenty-first 
Regiment of Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned 
by the goveinor of the State of Pennsylvania as lieutenant-colonel thereof on Decem- 
ber 11, 1863; and was promoted colonel January 10, 1864, and that from and after 
said dates the said officer assumed and performed all the duties of his grades until 
February 11, 1864, when he was mustered out as lieutenant-colonel; said regiment 
was continuously lielow the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and 
for tliis reason, and no otlier, said James Ashworth was refused muster and recogni- 
tion in the grade of lieutenant-colonel, prior to January 10, 1864, nor as colonel tliere- 
after. 

3. That during said period the said James Ashworth was allowed and paid only 
the pay and allowances of a major and lieutenant-colonel, although lie was in the 
continuous performances of the duties of higher grades. 



ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 259 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments, and upon 
other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel, the court makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. William Ashworth and Adam I. Asliworth, the claimants of this case, are citi- 
zens of the United States and residents of the city of Philadelphia, in the State of 
Pennsylvania. 

2. On December 11, 1863, James Ashworth was major of the One hundred and 
twenty-first Regiment of Pennsylvania Volunteers. On that date and until he was 
mustered into the service, to wit, on January 10, 1864, the same was and continued 
to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Orders, No. 182, of the 
War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress 
approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., 734). 

The lieutenant-colonel of said One hundred and twejity-first Regiment Penn- 
sylvania Volunteer Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, 
the duties of the lieutenant-colonel devolved upon said James Ashworth, who then 
and thereafter assumed and performed all the duties of lieutenant-colonel of said One 
hundred and twenty-first Regiment Pennsylvania Volunteers until January 10,1864. 

The governor of the State of Pennsylvania also issued to said James Ashworth a 
commission as lieutenant-colonel One himdred and twenty-first Regiment Penn- 
sylvania Volunteer Infantry. 

3. On the said December 11, 1863, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused 
to muster the said James Ashworth as lieutenant-colonel of said One hundred and 
twenty-first Regiment of Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry, solely because his com- 
mand was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to per- 
form the duties of lieutenant-colonel until he was mustered into the service as such 
January 10, 1864. 

4. If the said James Ashworth should be deemed lieutenant-colonel of the One 
hundred and twenty-first Regiment Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry and entitled 
to the pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a major, 
which he has received, and that of a lieutenant-colonel, to which he would have 
been entitled had he been mustered from the period from December 11, 1863, to 
January 9, 1864, would amount to $18.67, as reported by the Auditor for the War 
Department. 

5. Income tax, if to be deducted, would amount to 56 cents, leaving a balance of 
$18.11. 

6. Also on January 10, 1864, James Ashworth was as aforesaid lieutenant-colonel 
of One hundred and twenty-first Regiment of Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry. 
On that date, and until he was mustered out of the service, to wit, on February "11, 
1864, the same was and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by 
General Orders, No. 182, of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect 
section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., 734). 

The colonel of said One hundred and twenty-first Regiment Pennsylvania Volun- 
teers being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of colonel de- 
volved upon said James Ashworth, who then and thereafter assumed and performed 
all the duties of colonel of said One hundred and twenty-first Regiment Pennsylvania 
Volunteer Infantry until February 11, 1864, when discharged as lieutenant-colonel. 

7. The governor of the State of Pennsylvania also issued to said James Ashworth 
a commission as colonel One hundred and twenty-first Regiment of Pennsylvania 
Volunteer Infantry. 

8. On the said January 10, 1864, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused 
to niuster the said James Ashworth as colonel of said One hundred and twenty-first 
Regiment of Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was 
below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties 
of colonel until he was mustered out the service as lieutenant-colonel. 

9. If the said James Ashworth should be deemed colonel of One hundred and twenty- 
first Regiment of Pennsylvania Volunteers and entitled to the pay of that grade, 
the difference between his pay and allowances as a lieutenant-colonel, which he has 
received, and that of a colonel, to which he wolild have been entitled had he been 
mustered from the period from January 10, 1864, to February 11, 1864, would amount 
to $25.90, as reported by the Auditor for the War Department. 



260 ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. 

10. Income tax, if to be deducted, would amount to 78 c, leaving a balance of 
twenty-five dollars and twelve cents ($25.12). 

By the Court. 
Filed January 7, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 9th day of January, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

JOHN H. BLACK. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10622. John H. Black v. The United States.] 
STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Committee 
on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The 
case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 13th day of November, 1905. 

Messrs. Pennebaker and Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant, in his petition, makes substantially the following allegations: 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county" of Blair, in 
the State of Pennsylvania. 

2. That he, being the first sergeant of Company G, Twelfth Regiment of Pennsyl- 
vania Volunteer Cavalry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the 
State of Pennsylvania as second lieutenant thereof on July 22, 1863, and that from and 
after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until April 29, 
1864, when he was mustered in as second lieutenant. Said regiment was continuously 
below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, 
and no other, he was refused muster and recognition in the grade of second lieutenant 
during said period. 

3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances of 
a first sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of second 
lieutenant. 

Under the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other 
evidence, and upon briefs and arguments of counsel, the com-t makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. John H. Black, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and 
resident in the county of Blair, in the State of Pennsylvania. 

2. On July 22, 1863, the said John H. Black was first sergeant of Company G. Twelfth 
Regiment Pennsylvania Volunteer Cavalry. On that date and until he was mustered 
into the service — to vnt. on April 29, 1864" — the same was and continued to be below 
the minimum number prescribed by General Orders, No. 182, of the War Department, 
of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 
1863. (12Stat. L., p. 734.) 

The second lieutenant of said Company G, Twelfth-Regiment Pennsylvania Volun- 
teer Cavalry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of second 
lieutenant devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and per- 
formed all the duties of second lieutenant of said Company G. Twelfth Regiment 
Pennsylvania Volunteer Cavalry, until April 29, 1864, when he was mustered in as 
such. 

The governor of the State of Pennsylvania also issued to this claimant a commission 
as second lieutenant. Company G. Twelfth Regiment Pennsylvania Volunteer Cavalry. 

3. On the said July 22. 1863. the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to 
muster this claimant as second lieutenant of said Company G. Twelfth Regiment 
Pennsylvania Volunteer Cavalry, solely because liis command was below the minimum 
strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of second lieutenant 
until he was mustered into the service as such on April 29. 1864. 

4. During the period aforesaid — to wit, from July 22. 1863, to April 29, 1864 — this 
claimant employed no servant not enlisted. 

5. During said period this claimatit did draw rations from the Government. 



ALLOWAITCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 261 

6. If the said John H. Black should be deemed second lieutenant of Company G, 
Twelfth Regiment Pennsylvania Volunteer Cavalry, and entitled to the pay of that 
grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a first sergeant, which he has 
received, and that of a second lieutenant, to which he would have been entitled had 
he been mustered for the period from July 22, 1863, to April 29, 1864, would, without 
making any deduction on account of income tax, amount to $361.28, as reported by 
the Auditor for the War Department. 

7. Income tax would amount to 111.08, and if to be deducted would leave 1850.20. 

By the Court. 
Filed November 2, 1905. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 6th day of December, 1905. 

[seal.] ► John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

JOHN CRAIG. 

[Court of Claims. No. 12169—23 Congressional. John Craig v. The United States.] 
STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Committee 
on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The 
case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 21st day of January, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Carbon, in 
the State of Pennsylvania. 

2. That he, being the lieutenant-colonel of the One hundred and forty-seventh 
Regiment of Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned 
by the governor of the State of Pennsylvania as colonel thereof on June 14, 1865; and 
that from and after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade 
until July 21, 1865, when he was mustered out as lieutenant-colonel; said regiment 
was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, 
and for this reason, and no other, he was refused muster and recognition in the grade 
of colonel during said period. 

3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances 
of a lieutenant-colonel, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties 
of colonel. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments, and upon other 
evidence, and upon briefs and arguments of counsel, the court makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. John Craig, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and resident 
in the county of Carbon, in the State of Pennsylvania. 

2. On June 14, 1865, the said John Craig was lieutenant-colonel One hundred and 
forty-seventh Regiment Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until 
he was mustered out of the service — to wit, on July 21, 1865 — the same was and con- 
tinued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Order No. 182 of the 
War Department, of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Con- 
gress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 734). 

The colonel of said One hundred and forty-seventh Regiment Pennsylvania Vol- 
unteer Infantry being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of 
colonel devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and performed 
all the duties of colonel of said One hundred and forty-seventh Regiment Pennsylvania 
Volunteer Infantry, until July 15, 1865, when finally discharged. 

The governor of the State of Pennsylvania also issued to this claimant a commission 
as colonel. One hundred and forty-seventh Regiment Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry. 

3. On the said June 14, 1865, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to 
muster this claimant as colonel of said One hundred and forty-seventh Regiment 
Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its mini- 
mum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of colonel 
until he was mustered out of the service as lieutenant-colonel, July 21, 1865. 



262 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

4. If the said John Craig should be deemed colonel of One hundred and forty-seventh 
Regiment Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry and entitled to the pay of that grade, the 
difference between his pay and allowances as a lieutenant-colonel which he has 
received, and that of a colonel to which he would have been entitled had he been 
mustered for the period from June 14, 1865, to July 21, 1865, would amount to $88.85, 
without any deduction for income tax, as reported by the Auditor for the War Depart- 
ment. 

5. Income tax, if tobe deducted, would amount to $4.44, leaving a balance of eighty- 
four dollars and forty-one cents ($84.41). 

By the Court. 
Filed January 21, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 
Test this 24th day of January, 1907. 

[seal.] - John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

JOHN H. BANKS, SON OF JOHN A. BANKS. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-39. John H. Danks, son and sole heir of John A. Danks, 

deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Committee 
on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The 
case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 18th day of March, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker and Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of Allegheny, 
in the State of Pennsylvania, and is the son and sole heir of John A. Banks, deceased. 

2. That said John A. Banks, being the lieutenant-colonel of the Sixty-third Regi- 
ment of Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the 
governor of the State of Pennsylvania as colonel thereof on July 1, 1863, and that from 
and after said date the said John A. Banks assumed and performed all the duties of his 
said grade until August 5, 1864, when he was mustered out as lieutenant-colonel. Said 
regiment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regu- 
lation, and for this reason, and no other, said John A. Banks was refused muster and 
recognition in the grade of colonel during said period. 

3. That during said period the said John A. Banks was allowed and paid only the pay 
and allowances of a lieutenant-colonel although he was in the continuous performance 
of the duties of colonel. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Bepartments and upon other 
evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. John H. Banks, the claimant of this case, citizen of the United States, and 
resident of the county of Allegheny, in the State of Pennsylvania. 

2. On July 1, 1863, John A. Banks was lieutenant-colonel of the sixty-third Regi- 
ment of Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was mustered 
out of the service, to wit, on August 5, 1864, the same was and continued to be below 
the minimum number prescribed by General Order No. 182 of the War Bepartment of 
June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 

1863. (12 Stat. L., p. 734.) 

The colonel of said Sixty-third Regiment Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry being 
then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of colonel devolved upon 
said John A. Danks, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all the duties of 
colonel of said Sixty-third Regiment Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry until August 5, 

1864, when mustered out a.s lieutenant-colonel. 

The governor of the State of Pennsylvania also issued to said John A. Banks a com- 
mission as colonel Sixty-third Regiment of Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry. 

3. On the said July 1, 1863, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to 
muster the said John A. Banks as colonel of said Sixty-third Regiment of Pennsyl- 
vania Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its minimum 
strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of colonel until 
he was mustered out of the .service as lientenant-colonel, August 5, 1864. 



ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 263 

4. If the said Joliu A. Danks should be deemed colonel of the Sixty-third Regiment 
of Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry and entitled to the pay of that grade, the differ- 
ence between his pay and allowances as a lieutenant-colonel, which he has received, 
and that of a colonel, to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered from 
the period from July 1, 1863, to August 5, 1864, would amount to 1187.81 (one hundred 
and eighty-seven dollars and eighty-one cents), as reported by the Auditor for the 
War Department, including a deduction of $3.30 Income tax on remuster. 

By the Court. 

Filed March 18, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 19th day of March, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

FRANK E. FOSTER. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10676. Frank E. Foster v. The United States.] 
STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the com't by the Committee 
on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The 
case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 6th day of November, 1905. 

Messrs. Pennebaker and Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the de- 
fense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Warren, 
in the State of Pennsylvania. 

2. That he, being the first sergeant of Company H, One hundred and forty-third 
Regifnent of Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned 
by the governor of the State of Pennsylvania as second lieutenant thereof on Sep- 
tember 8, 1864, and that from and after said date he assumed and performed all the 
duties of his said grade until June 9, 1865, when he was mustered out as fh'st sergeant; 
said regiment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and 
regulation, and for this reason and no other he was refused muster and recognition 
in the grade of second lieutenant during said period. 

8. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances 
of a fu'st sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of 
second lieutenant. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other 
evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following 

FINDINGS or FACT. 

1. Frank E. Foster, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and 
resident in the county of Warren, in the State of Pennsylvania. • 

2. On September 8, 1864, the said Frank E. Foster was first sergeant of Company H, 
One hundred and forty-third Regiment Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry. On that 
date and until he was mustered out the service, to wit, on June 9, 1865, the same 
was and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Order, No. 
182, of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act 
of Congress approved March 3, 1863. (12 Stat. L., p. 734.) 

The second lieutenant of said Company H, One hundred and forty- third Regiment 
Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said 
grade, the duties of second lieutenant devolved upon this claimant, who then and 
thereafter assumed and performed all the duties of second lieutenant of said Com- 
pany H, One hundred and forty- third Regiment Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry 
until June 9, 1865, when he was discharged the service. 

The governor of the State of Pennsylvania also issued to this claimant a commission J 
as second lieutenant Company H, One hundred and forty-third Regiment Penn- 
sylvania Volunteer Infantry. 

3. On the said September 8, 1864, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused 
to muster this claimant as second lieutenant of said Company H, One hundred and 
forty-third Regiment Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry, solely because his com- 
mand was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to per- 
form the duties of second lieutenant until he was mustered out the service as first 
sergeant as above. 



264 . ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

4.' During the period aforesaid, to wit, from Septeml^er 8, 1864, to June 9, 1865, 
this claimant employed no servant not enlisted. 

5. During said period this claimant did draw rations fi-om the Government by way 
of commutation, the same being paid by an army paymaster. 

6. If the said Frank E. Foster should be deemed second lieutenant of Company H, 
One hundred and forty-third Regiment Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry, and entitled 
to the pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a first ser- 
geant, which he has received, and that of a second lieutenant, to which he would 
have been entitled had he been mustered for the- period from September 8, 1864, to 
June 9, 1865, would amount to 1569.52, without making any deduction for income 
tax, as reported by the Auditor for the War Department. 

7. Income tax, amounting to $26.67, if to be deducted, would leave 1542.85. 
Respectfully submitted. 

By the Court. 
Filed October 31, 1905. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 6th day of December, 1905. 

[seal.] • John Randolph, . 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

ELIZA J. HOUSTON, WIDOW OF JOHN HOUSTON. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-75. Eliza J. Houston, widow of John Houston, deceased, 

V. The United States'.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the iVoove-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Committee 
on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The 
case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 22d day of April, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant and the Attorney-General, 
by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his dh-ection, appeared for the 
defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

1. That she is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of Indiana, 
in the State of Pennsylvania, and is the widow of John Houston, deceased. 

2. That said John Houston, being the commissary-sergeant of the Fifty-fifth Regi- 
ment of Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the 
governor of the State of Pennsylvania as second lieutenant Company F, thereof, on 
December 30, 1863; and that from and after said date the said second lieutenant 
assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until April 6, 1864, when he 
was mustered in as such; said regiment was continuously below the minimum number 
prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, said John Houston 
was refused muster and recognition in the grade of second lieutenaiit during said 
period. 

3. That during said period the said John Houston was allowed and paid only the 
' pay and allowances of a commissary-sergeant although he was in the continuous per- 
formance of the duties of second lieutenant. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other 
evidence, and upon Iwiefs and arguments of counsel, the court makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. Eliza J. Houston, the claimant of this case, -is a citizen of the United States and 
resident of the county of Indiana in the State of Pennsylvania. 

2. On December 30, 1863, John Houston was commissary-sergeant of the Fifty-tifth 
Regiment of Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was mus- 
tered into the service as second lieutenant, to wit, on A])ril 6, 1864, the same was and 
continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Order No. 182 
of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of 
Congress approved March 3, 1863. (12 Stal. L., 734.) 

The second lieutenant of said C()mi)any F, Fifty-lifth Regiment Pennsylvania Vol- 
unteer Infantry, being then and tliereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of 
second lieutenant devolved said John Houston, who then and thereafter assumed and 
performed all the duties of second lieutenant of said Company F, Fifty-lifth Regiment 
Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry. 



ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS. 265 

The governor of the State of Pennsylvania also issued to said John Houston a com- 
mission as second lieutenant Company F, Fifty-fifth Regiment of Pennsylvania Vol- 
unteer Infantry. 

3. On the said December 30, 1863, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused 
to muster the said John Houston as second lieutenant of said Company F, Fifty-fifth 
Regiment of Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below 
its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of 
second lieutenant until he was mustered into the service as such April 6, 1864. 

4. If the said John Houston should be deemed second lieutenant of Company F, 
Fifty-fifth Regiment of Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay of 
that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a commissary-sergeant, 
which he has received, and that of a second lieutenant to which he would have been 
entitled had he been mustered, from the period from December 30, 1863, to April 5, 
1864, would amount to $136.78 (one hundred and thirty-six dollars and seventy-eight 
cents), as reported by the Auditor for the War Department. 

By the Court. 
Filed April 22, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the com't. 

Test this 24th day of April, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

HENRY MILLINGAR AND OTHERS. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 119(57. Henry Millingar et ai. v. The United States.] 
STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for the use of a sawmill, at Edgefield, Tenn., 
by the military forces of the United States during the late war for the suppression of 
the rebellion was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the 
House of Representatives on the 9th day of January, A. D. 1906. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 15th day of October, 
1906. 

V. B. Edwards, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by George 
M. Anderson, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimants in their petition, in substance, make the following allegations: 

Your petitioners, Henry Millingar and Charlotte Wilson, respectfully represent 
that they are citizens of the United States of America. The said Henry Millingar 
residing at Merchantville, N. J., and Charlotte Wilson residing at Philadelphia, Pa.; 
that they are the only heirs at law of James Millingar, deceased, and that said deceased 
was a citizen of Pittsburg, Pa., during the war of the rebellion, owning property 
located in the State of Tennessee. 

That the said James Millingar, deceased, did not give any aid or comfort to the 
late rebellion, but was throughout that war loyal to the Government of the United 
States. 

Your petitioners further state that claims for compensation for stores and supplies 
and for the use of a steam sawmill, were presented to the Quartermaster-General 
and Secretary of War, in the year 1866, and they recommended that the sum of 
$1,771.05 be paid for the use of the steam sawmill, but deceased refused to accept 
said sum as he did not consider it a reasonable compensation for the use of said mill; 
the other claim was disallowed. 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the deceased claimant, James Millingar, was 
loyal to the Government of the United States during the late war of the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion, in the years 1862-63, Charles 
H. Irwin, assistant quartermaster, took possession of, used, and occupied, for military 
purposes, a steam sawmill, situated in Edgefield, State of Tennessee. At the time 
of the occupancy of the said mill by the United States troops, the firm consisted of R. 
McClay and Jarnes Millingar, under the firm name of R. McClay & Co., which partner- 
ship was dissolved in the year 1864, James Millingar assuming all obligations of the 
firm, thereby becoming the sole owner of the mill. 



266 AIJ.OWANGE OF CERTATN CLAIMS. 

III. It appears from the record Henry Milliiigar, Charlotte Wilson, and Elizabeth 
Bidwell, deceased, children and heirs at law of James Millingar, deceased, and How- 
ard Bidwell, Clinton Bidwell, and Henry Bidwell, children and heirs at law of 
Elizabeth Bidwell, deceased, are the sole heirs of James Millingar, deceased. 

IV. A claim was filed before the War Department for the use of said sawmill. 
The Department found James Millingar loyal, and recommended the payment of 
$1,771 for the use of the same, but he (Millingar) would not accept said sum, as he 
considered it not a fair price; and said claim was afterwards presented to the Com- 
missioners of Claims, who decided that they did not have jurisdiction of the same. 
Petitioners petitioned Congress for relief, and their petition was referred to this court, 
as aforesaid. 

V. The reasonable value for the use and occupation of the aforesaid mill is the sum 
of one thousand seven hundred and seventy-one dollars (|1,771), for which no payment 
appears to have been made. 

By the Court. 
Filed October 29, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 28th day of November, A. D. 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

SOUTH CAROLINA. 

TRUSTEES OF THE GERMAN LUTHERAN CHURCH OF ORANGEBURG, 

S. C. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12063. Trustees of German Lutheran Churcli, of Orangeburg 

S. C, V. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court January 23, 1906, by order of the Com- 
mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives, under act of Congress approved 
March 3, 1883: 

"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the German Lutheran Church, of Orangeburg; South Carolina. 

"Beit enacted hy the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 
to the trustees of the German Lutheran Church, Orangeburg, South Carolina, the sum 
of nine hundred and eighty-three dollars and thirty-three cents, for the use and occu- 
pation of and damage to their church property by the military forces of the United 
States during the late war of the rebellion." 

The trustees of the German Lutheran Church, of Orangeburg,- S. C, appeared and 
filed their petition in this court October 18, 1906, in which they make the following 
allegations: 

That on or about June 1, 1865, the military forces of the United States, by proper 
authority, took possession of the churcli building of the German Lutheran Church, 
of Orangeburg, S. C, and used and occupied the same for hospital purposes until on 
or about March 20, 1866. 

That the reasonable rental value of said building during the period it was so occu- 
pied, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition in which 
it was at the time the said military forces took possession of the same, was the sum of 
$983.33, for which no payment has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 7th day of January, 
1907. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, 
by W. W. Scott, esq., liis assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering llie briefs and argunienls of 
counsel on botli sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the German Lutheran Church of Orangeburg, 
S. C, as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the 
war for the suppression of the rebellion. 



ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 267 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the 
United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building belonging 
to the German Lutheran Church, of Orangeburg, S. C, about June 1, 1865, and used 
the same for hospital purposes until on or about March 20, 1866. 

The reasonable rental value of said church building for said period, including 
damages thereto in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was the sum of nine hundred 
and eighty-three dollars and thirty-three cents ($983.33), no part of which appears 
to have been paid. 

III. The foregoing claim was never presented to any department of the Government 
prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to the court under the Tucker Act, 
hereinbefore mentioned, nor is any reason shown why such claim was not presented 
to some department of the Government. 

By the Court. 
Filed January 14, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 8th day of February, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

SOUTH DAKOTA. 

JOHN B. GEDDIS. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-59. John B. Geddis v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Committee 
on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The case 
was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 18th day of March, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant and the Attorney-General, by 
James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and a resident in the county of Beadle, 
in the State of South Dakota. 

2. That he, being the captain of Company C, One hundred and twenty-sixth Regi- 
ment New York Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the gov- 
ernor of the State of New York as lieutenant-colonel thereof on June 17, 1864; and that 
from and after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until 
June 15, 1865, when he was mustered out as captain; said regiment was continuously 
below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason and 
no other he was refused muster and recognition in the grade of lieutenant-colonel 
during said period. 

3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances of a 
captain, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of lieutenant- 
colonel. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments, and upon other 
evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel, the court makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. John B. Geddis, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and 
resident in the county of Beadle, in the State of South Dakota. 

2. On June 17, 1864, the said John B. Geddis was captain of Company C, One hundred 
and twenty-sixth Regiment New York Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he 
was mustered out of the service, to wit, on June 15, 1865, the same was, and continued 
to be, below the minimum number prescribed by General Order, No. 182, of the War 
Department, of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress 
approved March 3, 1863. (12 Stat. L., p. 734.) 

The lieutenant-colonel of said One hundred and twenty-sixth Regiment New York 
Volunteer Infantry being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of 
lieutenant-colonel devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and 
performed all the duties of lieutenant-colonel of said One hundred and twenty-sixth 
Regiment New York Volunteer Infantry. 



268 ALLOWAISrCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

The governor of the State of New York also issued to this claimant a commission as 
lieutenant-colonel One hundred and twenty-sixth Regiment New York Volunteer 
Infantry. 

3. On the said June 17, 1864, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to 
muster this claimant as lieutenant-colonel of said One hundred and twenty-sixth Regi- 
ment New York Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its mini- 
mum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of lieutenant- 
colonel until he was mustered out of the service as captain June 15, 1865. 

4. During the period aforesaid, to wit, from June 17, 1864, to June 15, 1865, this 
claimant employed one servant not enlisted. 

5. If the said John B. Geddis should be deemed lieutenant-colonel of the One hun- 
dred and twenty-sixth Regiment New York Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay 
of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a captain, which he has 
received, and that of a lieutenant-colonel, to which he would have been entitled had he 
been mustered for the period from June 17, 1864, to June 15, 1865, would amount to 
$391.31 (three hundred and ninety-one dollars and thirty-one cents), as reported by the 
Auditor for the War Department. 

By the Court. 
Filed March 18, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 19th day of March, 1907. 

[seal.] • John Randolph, 

Assistant CIe7'k Court of Claims. 

TENNESSEE. 

HEIRS OF JOSIAH ANTHONY. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11363. Susan E. Joyner, Jane F. Crump, Mary E. Roberson, 
and Martha F. Luster, sole heirs of Josiah Anthony, deceased, v. The United States.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- 
nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late"^ war for 
the suppression of the rebellion, the coiu-t, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Susan 
E. Joyner, Jane F. Crump, Mary E. Roberson, and Martha F. Luster, heii-s of Josiah 
Anthony, the persons alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or fi'om whom 
the same are alleged to have been taken, were loyal to the Government of the United 
States throughout said war. 

By the Court. , 

Filed October 30, 1905. 

[In the Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11363. Susan E. Joyner, Mary E. Roberson, Martha F. 
Luster, and Jane F. Crump, sole heirs of Josiah Anthony, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the aboA^e-entitled cause for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during 
the war "for the suppression of the rebellion was referred to the Court of Claims by the 
committee of the House of Representatives on War Claims, by letter dated March 17, 
1904, for an investigation and determination of facts under the provisions of an act of 
Congress approved March 3, 1883, known as the Bowman Act. 

The court, on the 30th day of October, 1905, found that the persons alleged to have 
iurnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, 
were loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. 

Thereafter the case was brought to a hearing on its merits. Wilson <k Barksdale 
appeared for the claimants, and the Attoruey-Geueral, by P. ]\I. Ashford, his assistant 
and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the 
United States. 

The claimants in their petition make the following allegations: 

That they are all citizens of the United States, and that during the war of the rebel- 
lion the United States forces, by proper authority, took from them stores and supplies 
of the value of §7,700, and appropriated the same to the use of the United States Army, 
as follows: 

Taken from B. S. Martin, guardian of said claimants, in whose custody the property 
was, near Hartsville, Sumner County, Tenn.. on or about Decemlier 5, 1862, by Lieut. 
T. R. Dudley, regimental quartermaster Second Indiana Cavalry, 38 large mules, 
valued at $160 each, and 9 serviceable horses, valued at $180 each, amounting to $7,700. 



ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 269 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs of counsel on both 
sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The evidence establishes that Susan E. Joyner, Mary E. Roberson, Martha F. 
Luster, and Jane F. Crump are the sole heirs of Josiah Anthony, deceased. 

II. The original claimant herein, Josiah Anthony, died in February, 1854, leaving 
a considerable estate. B. S. Martin thereafter qualified as his executor, and subse- 
quently, in December, i860, was appointed guardian of the aforesaid claimants, and 
duly qualified as required by law. Said guardian collected certain funds and invested 
the same in mules and horses, and while the said stock was in the possession of the said 
B. S. Martin they were, in December, 1862, forcibly taken from his possession by the 
military forces of the United States for the use of the Army, in the county of Sumner, 
State of Tennessee. The reasonable value of said property at the time it was taken 
being the sum of forty-five hundred and twenty dollars ($4,520), for which no payment 
appears to have been made. 

By THE Court. 
' Filed December 4, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 11th day of December, 1905. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

OCTAVIA P. BROOKS. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 4615. Octavia P. Brooks v. The United States.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or 
furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war 
for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that 
Octavia P. Brooks, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or 
from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government 
of the United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed January 5, 1903. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 4615. Octavia P. Brooks v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims, House of Representatives, on the 22d day of May, 1888. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 5th day of January, 1903, found that 
the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were 
alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- 
out said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 15th day of December, 1904. 

Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by E. C. 
Brandenburg, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes the following allegations : 

That she is a citizen of the United States, residing in St. Louis, St. Louis County, 
State of Missouri; that she resided during tlie late war of the rebellion in Hardeman 
County, State of Tennessee; that at different times during said period the United 
States forces, by proper authority, took from her quartermaster stores and commis- 
sary supplies of the value of $500, and appropriated the same to the use of the United 
States Army, as follows: 

Taken February 3, 1864, by Lieut. D. M. Bailey, Nineteenth Pennsylvania Cavalry, 
of General Smith's command: 

200 bushels of corn, at $1 $200. 00 

4,000 pounds of fodder, at |1 per cwt 40. 00 

Taken by Daniel B. Duncan, first lieutenant and acting assistant quarter- 
master. Second Tennessee Cavalry, on March 7, 1864: 

2 mules, at $130 each 260. 00 

Total 500. 00 



270 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 

The court, upon" the e\idence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDING OP FACTS. 

There was taken from the claimant, in Hardeman County, State of Tennessee, dur- 
ing the war of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States, for the use 
of the army, property of the kind and character above described, which was then 
and there reasonably worth the sum of three hundred and fifty dollars (1350), for 
which no payment appears to have been made. 

By the Court. 

Filed December 19, 1904. 

A true copy. 

Test this 6th day of January, 1905. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

' JOHN L. SMITH, ADMINISTRATOR. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 4376. Estate of Nancy N. B. Bridges, deceased, v. The 

United States.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- 
nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the 
suppression of the reijellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Nancy N. B. 
Bridges, deceased, the person alleged to have fiunished such supplies or stores, or from 
whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the 
United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed May 13, 1901. 

Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 4376. John L. Smith, administrator of Nancy N. B. Bridges, 

deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken 
by or fm-nished to the military forces of the United States for theii* use during the late 
war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted to the court by the Committee 
on AVar Claims, House of Representatives, on the 1st day of May, 1888. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 13th day of May, 1901, found that the per- 
son alleged to have furnished the supplies, or stores, or from whom they were alleged to 
have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said 
war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 9th day of November, 1905. 

Charles F. Benjamin, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interesfs of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

That his intestate was a resident of Rutherford County, Tenn. , and was the owner and 
possessor, on her farm in said county, of certain forage and live stock, which, in the win- 
ter of the year 1863, was seized and appropriated to the use of the military forces of the 
United States then stationed and operating in said locality, according to the following 
bill of items: 

3,000 bushels corn, at 50 cents $1, 500 

25 tons hay, at $10 250 

15 tons fodder, at $10 150 

16 hogs, 3,200 pounds, at 6 cents 192 

30 stock hogs, 3,000 pounds, at 6 cents 180 

1,000 bushels corn, at 50 cents 500 

10 tons hay, at |10 100 

10 tons fodder, at $10 100 

Total 2, 972 



ALLOWANCE OP CEETAIN CLAIMS. 271 

The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the briefs and arguments of the respec- 
tive counsel, makes the following 

FINDINGS or FACT. 

There was taken from claimant's decedent, in Rutherford County, State of Tennessee, 
during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United 
States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, property as above described, which, 
at the time and place of taking, was reasonably worth the sum of one thousand five 
hundred and twenty dollars ($1,520). 

No payment appears to have laeen made therefor. 

By the Court. 

Filed November 13, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 10th day of November, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerh Court of Claims. 

ELI MARSHALL, EXECUTOR. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10472. Estate of William and Thomas H. Brown, deceased, v. 

The United States.] 

This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- 
nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for 
the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminaiy inquiry, finds that William 
and Thomas H. Brown, deceased, the persons alleged to have furnished such supplies 
or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, were loyal to the 
Government of the United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed October 27, 1902. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 10472. Eli Marshall, executor of William Brown, deceased. 

V. The United States.] 

statement of case. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken 
by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their use during the late 
war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Committee 
on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 18th day of February, 1902. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 27th day of October, 1902, found that 
the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were 
alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- 
out said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 2d day of May, 1904. G. W. Z. 
Black, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by James A. Tanner, 
esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of 
the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

That he is a citizen of the United States, residing in Greene County, State of Ten- 
nessee, where his decedent resided during the late war of the rebellion; that at differ- 
ent times during said period the United States forces, by proper authority, took from 
his decedent and Thomas H. Brown quartermaster stores and commissary supplies 
of the value of $400, and appropriated the same to the use of the United States Army, 
as follows: 

400 bushels of com, at $1 per bushel $400 

(Taken in the fall of 1863 by General Bumside's command.) 

That one-third of said claim belongs to his decedent and the other two-thirds to 
Thomas H. Brown. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OP FACT. 

There was taken from the claimant's decedent, in Greene County, State of Teimessee, 
during the war of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States, for the use 



272 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

of the Army, property of the kind and character above described, which was then and 
there reasonal)ly worth the sum of eighty dollars ($80). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

By the Court. 

Filed May 31, 1904. 

A true copy. 

Test this 20th day of December, 1904. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

HEIR OF THOMAS P. BUTT. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11261. Estate of Thomas P. Butt, deceased, v. 

The United States.] 

This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or 
furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late 
war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds 
that Thomas P. Butt, deceased, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies 
or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have Iseen taken, was loyal to the Gov- 
ernment of the United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed March 20, 1905. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11261. Mitchell H. Butt, heir of Thomas P. Butt, v. The 

United States.] 

statement of case. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 12th day of January, 
1904. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 20th day of March, 1905, found that the 
person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores or from whom they were alleged 
to have been taken was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout 
said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 18th day of April, 1905. Clar- 
ence A. Brandenburg, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
George M. Anderson, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

That he is a citizen of the United States; that deceased was a citizen of the United 
States, residing during the war of the rebellion in Maury County, Tenn. ; that at differ- 
ent times the United States military forces, by proper authority, took from decedent 
stores and supplies valued at $707, as follows: One sorrel mare, $150; 500 bushels of 
corn, $500; 1 cow, $50; 1 calf, $7. That said claim was presented to the commissioner 
of claims and disallowed. Claim was referred here under the pro\dsions of the Bow- 
man Act. 

The court upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

findings op pact. 

There was taken from the claimant's decedent in Maury County, State of Tennessee, 
during the war of the rebellion by the military forces of the United States for the use 
of the Army stores and supplies as al:)ove described, which at the time and place of 
taking were reasonably worth the sum of four hundred and sixty-five dollars ($465). 

It does not appear that any payment has been made for any part thereof. 

By the Court. 

FUed May 1, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 22d day of December, 1905. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claiins. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 



27a 



S. J. McDOWALL, ADMINISTRATOR. 



[Court of Claims. 



Congressional, No. 11985. 
deceased 



S. J. McDowall, administrator of James F. Calhoort 
v. The United States. 



This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- 
nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war 
for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that 
James F. Calhoon, deceased, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or 
stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Gov- 
ernment of the United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed January 21, 1907. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11985. S. J. McDowall, administrator oj James F. CaUaoon, 

deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The "claim in the above-entitled case, for supplies, or stores, alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 9th day of Jan- 
uary, 1906. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 8th day of January, 1907, found that the 
person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were 
alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- 
out said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 8th day of January, 1907. 

Francis L. Neubeck, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
Felix Brannigan, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

That he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Bedford, 
in the State of Tennessee: that he is the duly appointed, qualified, and acting admin- 
istrator of the estate of James F. Calhoon, deceased; that during the late civil war 
said decedent was a citizen of the United States, residing in said county and State; 
that during said period the United States military forces took from said decedent and 
converted to the use of the United States Army the following quartermaster stores 
and commissary supplies : 

Taken from decedent's premises, situated near Shelby ville, Tenn., by troops under command 
of General Woods, on or about August 15, 1862. 

22 hogs, averaging 100 pounds each , at 6 cents per pound $132 

11 head of cattle, averaging 200 pounds each, at 6 cents 132 

5 tons of hay, at |20 per ton 100 

Total 364 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 



FINDING OP FACT. 

There was taken from the claimant's'decedent in Bedford County, State of Ten- 
nessee, by the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use 
of the Army, property as above described, which at the time and place of taking was 
reasonably worth the sum of two hundred and ninety dollars ($290). No payment 
appears to have been made therefor. 

By THE Court. 

Filed January 21, 1907. 



A true copy. 

Test this 31st day of January, 1907 

[seal.] 



H. Rep. 543, 60-1- 



-18 



John Randolph, 
Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 



274 ALLOWAlSrCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS, 

JAMES M. CAMPBELL. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 6709. Jkmes M. Campbell i;. The United States.] 

This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- 
nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war 
for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that 
James M. Campbell, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or 
from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government 
of the United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 6709. James M. Campbell v. The United States.] 
STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims, House of Representatives, on the 14th day of February, 
1889. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 30th day of October, 1905, found that 
the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were 
alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- 
out said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 13th day of December, 1905. 
Clarence A. Brandenburg, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
F. De C. Faust, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the LTnited States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

That claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Maury County, 
Tenn., and was the owner and possessor of certain property which in the fall of 1864 
was seized and appropriated to the use of the military forces of the United States 
then operating in said locality, according to the following bill of items: 

2 mares, at $150 each $300 

The court, upon the evidence and upon the consideration of the briefs and after 
hearing the arguments of the respective counsel, makes the following 

FINDING OF FACT. 

There was taken from the claimant in Mamy County, State of Tennessee, during 
the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United 
States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, property as above described, 
which, at the time and place of taking, was reasonably worth the sum of two hundred 
dollars ($200). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

By the Court. 

Filed December 18, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 4th day of January, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

EXECUTORS OF WILLIAM H. CHERRY. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 2542. Edgar Cherry et al., executors of W. H. Cherry, 

deceased, v. The United States.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or 
furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late 
war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds 
that W. H. Cherry, the- person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or 
from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government 
of the United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed June 22, 1893. 



ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. 275 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 2542. Edgar Cherry and James M. Head, executors of 
WiUiam H. Cherry, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken 
by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their use during the 
late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Com- 
mittee on War Claims, House of Representatives, on the 6th day of March, 1888. 

On a preliminary inquiry, the court, on the 22d day of June, 1893, found that the 
person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were 
alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- 
out said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 1st day of February, 1905, 
Charles F. Benjamin, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
George M. Anderson, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimants in their petition make the following allegations : 

That their testator, during the war of the rebellion, was a citizen and resident of 
Hardin County, in the State of Tennessee, where he carried on business as a general 
trader, and had a large and well-stocked farm opposite Savannah in that county, 
and that dtuing the spring and summer of 1862 the Army of the Tennessee, under 
Major-General Grant, and the detachment from that army that remained at Savannah 
after the advance of the main body toward Corinth seized and appropriated, as sup- 
plies and stores for their use, sundry articles in kind, amount and value as follows: 

3,000 bushels corn, at 50 cents $1, 500 

28,000 bundles fodder, at 2 cents ^140 

40 tons hay, at $30 1, 200 

3 horses, at flOO each ^'^300 

4 mules, at $100 each *S 400 

30 cords wood, at $2 ^ 60 

3,000 feet lumber, at $15 45 



Total 3, 645 

The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the briefs and arguments of counsel, 
makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

There was taken from the claimants' decedent, in the county of Hardin, State of 
Tennessee, during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces 
of the United States, for the use of the Army, property of the kind and character 
above described, which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of two thou- 
sand seven hundred and eighty-seven dollars ($2,787), for which no payment appears 
to have been made. 

By THE Court, 

Filed February 6, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 4th day of December, 1905. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims, 

IDA J. COLE. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 3624. Martha C. Cole v. The United States.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- 
nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for 
the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Martha 
C. Cole, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom 
the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United 
States throughout said war. 

By THE Court. 

Filed March 16, 1903. 



276 ALLOWAKCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

{Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 3624. Ida J. Cole, sole heir of Martha C. Cole, deceased, r. 

The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

■ The claim in the above-entitled case, for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for then- use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 10th day of April, 
1888. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 16th day of March, 1903, found that 
the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were 
alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States 
throughout said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 8th day of February, 1905. 
Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by E. C. Bran- 
denburg, esq.', his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes the following allegations: 

That she is a citizen of the United States, residing in Shelby County, Tenn., and is 
the sole heir of Martha C. Cole, deceased, who resided in said county and State during 
the late civil war; that during said war, and at the times mentioned and by the officers 
designated in said petition, the United States military forces, by proper authority, 
took from said decedent quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the kinds 
and values below stated, to wit: 

1 fine horse $150 

5 tons of fodder, at |20 per ton 100 

500 pounds of bacon, at 30 cents per pound 150 

83 hogs, at 15 each 165 

1 beef on foot 30 

250 bushels of corn 250 

4 good mules, at |150 each 600 

Total 1,445 

The comt, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDING OP FACTS. 

There was taken from the claimant's decedent, in Shelby County, State of Tennessee, 
during the war of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States, for the 
use of the Army, property of "the kind and character above described, which was 
then and there reasonably worth the sum of nine hundred and twenty-five dollars 
($925), for which no payment appears to have been made. 

By the Court. 

Filed February 13, 1905, 

A true copy. 

Test this 2d day of March, 1905. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

ANDREW A. COLTER. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10486. Andrew A. Colter v. The United States.] 

This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken byj^or 
furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use duirng the late war 
for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that 
Andrew A Colter, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores or 
from whom the same are alleged to" have been taken, was loyal to the Government 
of the United States throughout said war. 

[By the Court. 

Filed December 5, 1904. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTATN CLAIMS. 277 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10486. Andrew A. Colter v. The United States.] 
STATEMENT OF CASE. 

F The claim in the above-entitled case, for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 18th day of Feb- 
ruary, 1904. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 5th day of December, 1904, found that 
the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were 
alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- 
out said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 16th day of February, 1905. 

Moyers & Consaul ai)peared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by E. C. Bran- 
denbxu-g, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

That during the late civil war he was a citizen of the United States and a resident 
of Sevier County, Tenn.; that during said war the United States military forces, 
under proper authority, took from the petitioner and converted to the use of the 
United States Army quartermaster stores of the kinds and values below stated, to wit: 

130 bushels of com, at $1 per bushel $130. 00 

2,500 pounds of hay 25. 00 

1,000 pounds of fodder 10. 00 

30 dozen sheaf oats, at 50 cents per dozen 15. 00 

Total 180. 00 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDING OP FACTS. 

There was taken from the claimant, in the county of Sevier, State of Tennessee, 
during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces of the 
United States, for the use of the Army, property of the kind and character above 
described, which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of one hundred and 
seventy-three dollars ($173). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

By the Court. 

Filed March 20, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 12th day of January, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

C. H. CORN, ADMINISTRATOR. 

ICourt of Claims. Congressional, No. 1559. C. H. Corn, administrator of estates of W. W. Sharp, 
deceased, and of John Chitwood, deceased, v. The United States.] 

This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- 
nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for 
the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that W. W. 
Sharp, and John Chitwood, deceased, and Susan Sharp, Leodicea Sharp, Robert 
Sharp, Margaret Sharp, George Sharp, Sarah Sharp, and William Sharp, the persona 
alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged 
tohave been taken, were loyal to the Government of the United States throughout 
said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed March 21, 1904. 



278 ALLOWANCE OP CEKTAIN CLAIMS. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 1559J. C. H. Corn, administrator of estate of John Chitwood, 
deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in tlie above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 24th day of Feb- 
ruary, 1887. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 21st day of March, 1904, found that the 
person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were 
alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- 
out said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 14th day of January, 1907. 

Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by A. C. Camp- 
bell, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and pro- 
tection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

That he is a citizen of the United States residing in the county of Franklin, State of 
Tennessee; that he is the duly appointed, qualified, and acting administrator of the 
estate of John Chitwood, deceased; that during the civil war said decedent was a citi- 
zen of the United States and a resident of said county and State ; that during said war 
the United States military forces, under proper authority, took from said decedent for 
the use of the army quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the kind and 
values below stated, to wit: 

Taken about August or September, 1862, by troops under General Buell, 
near TuUahoma, Tenn. : 

1 claybank horse $125. 00 

Taken about July, 1863, by troops under Colonel Parkhurst, Ninth Michigan, 
and under General Crittenden: 

40 bushels wheat, at $2 per bushel 80. 00 

30 bushels rye, at |1 per bushel 30. 00 

4 cattle (1,550 pounds beef), at 10 cents per pound 155. 00 

15 hogs (1,500 pounds), at 10 cents per pound 150. 00 

10 sheep, at $2 each 20. 00 

Total 560. 00 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the followihg 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

Dm'ing the late civil war the United States military forces, under proper authority, 
took from claimant's decedent, John Chitwood, a resident of the county of Franklin, 
State of Tennessee, for use of the army, stores and supplies of the kinds mentioned in 
the petition, which at the time and place of taking were reasonably worth the sum of 
two hundred and ninety dollars (|290), for which no payment appears to have been 
made. 

By the Court. 

Filed January 21, 1907." 

A true copy. 

Test this 28th day of January, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

J. W. CUMMINGS, ADMINISTRATOR. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11278. J. W. Cummings, administrator of the estate ol 
Rebecca Cummings, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for stores or supplies alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forcesof the United States, for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims, House of Representatives, January 26, 1904. 



ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 279 

On a preliminary inquiry, the court, on the 16th day of March, 1903, found that 
Rebecca Cummings, deceased, the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or 
stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Govern- 
ment of the United States throughout said war, her loyalty having been decided by 
the court in the Eveline Hixon case, No. 10496. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 21st day of November, 1904. 
G. W. Hott, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General by W. W. 
Scott, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and pro- 
tection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

That he was appointed and duly qualified as administrator of the estate of Rebecca 
Cummings, deceased, in the county court of Hamilton County, Tenn., on the 7th day 
of November, 1904, and files herewith duly authenticated certificate thereof. 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion there was taken from 
his decedent, Rebecca Cummings, by the military forces of the United States, by 
proper authority, in Hamilton County, Tenn., property of the kind and value as 
follows: 

One-fourth of 143 acres of timber, 25 cords per acre, 893| cords of wood, at $1 per 
cord, $893.75. 

(Taken in 1863 and 1864 by the commands of Generals Hooker, Geary, Howard, and 
others.) 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OP FACT. 

There was taken from the claimant's decedent, in Hamilton County, State of Ten 
nessee, during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces of 
the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, property as above 
described, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of six 
hundred and fifty-six dollars (|656). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

By the Court. 

Filed December 5, 1904. 

A true copy. 

Test this 30th day of December, 1904. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

■ Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

R. C. M. CUNNYNGHAM AND W. H. CUNNYNGHAM, EXECUTORS. 

rCourt of Claims. Congressional, No. 10057. Estate of Elvina Cunnyngham, deceased, v. The United 

States.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- 
nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for 
the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Elvina 
Cunnigham, deceased, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, 
or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government 
of the United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed January 3*0, 1905. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10057. R. C. M. Cunnyngham and W. H. Cunnyngham, execu- 
tors of the estate of Elvina Cunn3mgham, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military force of the United States for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 13th day of Feb- 
ruary, 1900. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 30th day of January, 1905, found that 
the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were 
alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United Stated; 
throughout said war. 



280 ALLOWAXCE OF CEETAIX CLAIMS. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 2d day of January, 1906. 

Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by George M. 
Anderson, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimants in their petition make the following allegations: 

That they are citizens of the United States and residents of the county of Rhea, 
State of Tennessee; that they are the duly appointed, qualified, and acting executors 
of the last will and testament of Elvina Cunnyngham, deceased, late of said county 
and State; that during the late civil war said decedent was a citizen of the United 
States and a resident of said county and State; that during said war the United States 
military forces under proper authority took from said decedent and converted to the 
use of the United States Army quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the 
kinds and values below stated, to wit: 

1,100 bushels of corn, at $1 per bushel $1, 100. 00 

5,200 pounds of hay and fodder 52. 00 

25 bushels oats, at 50 cents per bushel 12. 50 

6 bushels wheat, at $1.50 per bushel 9. 00 

800 pounds of pork, at 10 cents per pound 80. 00 

600 pounds of bacon, at 15 cents per pound 90. 00 

3 beef cattle 80. 00 

7 sheep 14. 00 

1,200 raUs, at |3 per hundred 36. 00 

Total 1, 473. 50 

The coui't, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. There were taken from the claimants in Rhea County, State of Tennessee, dur- 
ing the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United 
States, for the use of the Army, property as above described, which at the time and 
place was then and there worth the sum of nine hundred and thirty-three dollars 
($933), for which no payment appears to have been made. 

By the Court. 

Filed January 8, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 8th day of February, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

C. R. HOLMES, ADMINISTRATOR OF LUCKETT DAVIS. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 205-5. I.uckett Davis v. The United States.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- 
nished to the military forces of the United States for their use diu-ing the late war 
for the suppression of the rebellion, the comt, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that 
said Luckett Davis, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or 
from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government 
of the United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed June 8, 1891. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 2055. C. R. Holmes, administrator of Luckett Davis, deceased, 

V. The United States.] 

statement OF case. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims, House of Representatives, on the 27th day of January, 1888. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 8th day of June, 1891, found that the 
person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were 
alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- 
out said war. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAUST CLAIMS. 281 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 19th day of November, 1906. 

C. A. & F. W. Brandenburg, esqs., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 
^ That said Luckett Davis, now deceased, during the said war was a resident of Ruth- 
erford County, State of Tennessee, and was the owner and possessor on his farm in 
said county and State of certain quartermaster stores and commissary supplies, which 
in the spring of 1863 were seized and appropriated to the use of the military forces 
of the United States then stationed and operating in said locality, according to the 
following bill of items: 

10 horses -■ 11,225.00 

7 mules 890.00 

8 well-fatted beeves 192. 00 

6 small beeves 90. 00 

2,800 bushels of corn taken from the field, at 60 cents per bushel 1, 680. 00 

2,468 bushels of corn taken from the crib, at 60 cents per bushel 1, 480. 80 

2 tons of fodder, at |20 40. 00 

2 tons of oats, at |20 40. 00 

Total 5, 637. 80 

The court, upon the evidence »nd after the consideration of briefs and after hearing 
the arguments of the respective counsel, makes the following 

FINDING OF PACT. 

There was taken from the claimant's decedent in Rutherford, State of Tennessee, 
diuring the late civil war, by the military forces of the United States, for the use of the 
Army, by proper authority, property of the kind and character described in the peti- 
tion, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of foiu-teen 
hundred and ninety dollars ($1,490). 

No payment appears to have. been made therefor. 

By the Court. 

Filed March 11, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 12th day of December, A. D. 1907. 

[sE.\L.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

WILLIAM H. DAWSON. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11272. William H. Dawson v. The United States.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or 
furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war 
for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that 
William H. Dawson, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, 
or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government 
of the United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed March 26, 1906. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11272. William H. Dawson v. The United States.] 
STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken 
by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their use during the 
late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Com- 
mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 26th day of January, 1904. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 26th day of March, 1906, found that the 
person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged 
to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout 
Baid war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 29th day of October, 1907. 



282 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

Moyers and Consaul appeared for tlie claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
F. W. Collins, esq., his assistant and iinder his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

That he is a citizen of the United States, residing in the county of Monroe, State 
of Tennessee. 

That during the late civil war petitioner resided in said county and State; that 
during said war the United States military forces, under proper authority, took from 
petitioner for use of the army, quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the 
kinds and values below stated, to wit: 

216 bushels of corn, at $1 per bushel $516 

1 horse 150 

1| tons fodder, at $12 per toB 18 

3,500 pounds of bacon, at 20 cents per pound 300 

2,000 rails, at |3 per hundred 60 

100 dozen bundles oats, at 25 cents per dozen 25 

200 pounds flour 14 

Total 1, 083 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

. FINDING OF FACT. 

I. During the late civil war the United States military forces, under proper author- 
ity, took from claimant, in the county of Monroe, State of Tennessee, for the use of 
the army, property of the kind and character described in the petition, which at 
the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of six hundred and eighty 
dollars ($680). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

By the Court. 

Filed November 4, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 19th day of December, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

WOODSON H. WEBB, ADMINISTRATOR. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 5879. Mrs. Harriet Day (formerly Litteral} v. The United 

States.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- 
nished to the military forces of the United States for their use diu-ing the late war 
for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that 
Mrs. Harriet Day (formerly Litteral), the person alleged to have furnished such sup- 
plies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to 
the Government of the United States throughout said war. 

By the Court, 

Filed February 10, 1896. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 5879. William N. B. Litteral, Adelaide Litteral. and R. W. 

Litteral v. The United States.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or 
furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war 
for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that 
William N. B. Litteral, Adelaide Litteral, and R. W. Litteral, the persons alleged 
to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have 
been taken, were loyal to the Government of the United States thr-oughout said war. 

By THE Court. 

Filed May 15, 1905. 



ALLOWAIsrCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. 283 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 5879. "Woodson H. Webb, administrator of the estate of Harriet 
Day, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims of the Fiftieth Congress, on the 6th day of August, 1888. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 10th day of February, 1896, and the 
15th day of May, 1905, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies 
or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Gov- 
ernment of the United States throughout said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 6th day of February, 1907. 

George A. & William B. King appeared for claimant, and the Attorney- General, 
by Charles F. Kincheloe, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant m his amended petition makes the following allegations : 

That he is the administrator of the estate of Harriet Day (formerly Litteral), 
appointed on the 17th day of March, 1906, by the county com-t of Giles County, State 
of Tennessee, his warrant of authority being herewith brought into court. 

That Lidwell Litteral in his lifetime was the owner of the property hereinafter 
described; that the said Lidwell Litteral died in the year 1862, leaving surviving 
him a widow, Harriet Litteral, afterwards remarried to one Day, and William N. B. 
Litteral, Adalaide L. Litteral, and R. W. Litteral, his children, and that the prop- 
erty hereinafter described was at the time it was taken the property of said Harriet 
Litteral, William N. B. Litteral, Adalaide L. Litteral, and R. W. Litteral, jointly as 
the next of kin of Lidwell Litteral. 

That said William N. B. Litteral, Adalaide L. Litteral, and R. W. Litteral, chil- 
dren of said Harriet Day (formerly Litteral) all died in Giles County, Tenn., intes- 
tate without issue, prior to the death of the said Harriet Day and that upon the 
death of the last of these children the entire claim became vested in said Harriet 
Day (formerly Litteral). 

That neither the said Harriet Day (formerly Litteral), William N. B. Litteral, 
Adalaide L. Litteral, nor R. W. Litteral ever gave any aid or comfort to the Confed- 
eracy, but throughout that war between the States remained loyal to the Govern- 
ment of the United States. 

That the following property, belonging to the aforesaid heirs of Lidwell Litteral, 
deceased, was taken from them by the United States Army and used by the said 
Army, the date, the place, and command being particularly stated below: 

February 16, 1864, by General Dodge, commanding Pulaski Post: 

1 sorrel mule, 4 years old 

800 pounds of fodder 12 

November 15, 1864, by General Johnson: 

15 bushels of corn 15 

March 7, 1865, by Captain Baker: 

25 cords of wood 50 

December 26, 1864, by General Wilson: 

50 bushels of corn, at |1 per bushel 50 

300 bushels of fodder 6 

November 6, 1863: 

800 pounds of pork 80 

February 10, 1864, by General Dodge: 

750 pounds of pork - 75 

1,000 pounds of pork 100 

December 26, 1864, by General Wilson: 

100 pounds of pork, at 10 cents per pound 10 

200 pounds of bacon, at 20 cents per pound 40 

Total 588 

That a claim for said property was presented to the Commissioners of Claims, the 
items of said claim being as heretofore stated. Said claim was not allowed by said 
tribunal, the ground for said action being that it was not considered that the property 
claimed was actually the property of the claimant or that the claimant had satisfac- 
torily proved her loyalty. 



284 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

That the said claim has been, presented to the Fiftieth Congress and was by the 
House of Representatives of the said Fiftieth Congress referred to the Committee on 
War Claims of said House, by which committee it was on. the 6th day of August, 1888, 
referred to this court for a finding of the facts in accordance with section. 1 of an act 
approved March 3, 1883, entitled "An act to afford assistance and relief to Congress 
and the Executive Departments in the investigation of claims and demands against 
the Government. " 

That no other action than as aforesaid has been had on this claim in Congress or 
by any of the Departments. The claimant is the sole owner of this claim and the 
only person interested therein, and no assignment or transfer of this claim or any 
part thereof or interest therein has been made. 

The claimant is justly entitled to the amount herein claimed from the United States 
after allowing all just credits and offsets. The claimant is a citizen of the United 
States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

There was taken from the claimant's decedent in Giles County, State of Tennessee, 
during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United 
States for the use of the Army, property as described in the petition, which at the 
time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of three hundred and ten 
dollars ($310). 

No payment appears to have been made theretor. 

By the Court. 

Filed February 11, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 14th day of February, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

* Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

ROBERT A. DICKSON. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11273. Robert A. Dickson v. The United States.] 

This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- 
nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for 
the suppression of the rebellion, the com't on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Robert 
A. Dickson, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from 
whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the 
United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed May 6, 1905. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11273. Robert A. Dickson v. The United States.] 
statement of case. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken 
by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late 
war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the comt by the Com- 
mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 26th day of January, 
1904. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 6th day of November, 1905, found that 
the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were 
alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States tlnough- 
out said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 7th day of May, 1906. 

Moyers & Consaul, appeared for the claimant, and Attorney-General, by W. W. 
Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protec- 
tion of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

That he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Rhea County, Tenn.; 
that during the late civil war he resided in Bradley and Hamilton counties, Tenn.; 
that during said war the United States military forces, under proper authority and 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 285 

with consent of petitioner, took from petitioner, for the use of the United States Army, 
quartermaster stores of the kind and value stated, to wit: 

175 bushels of corn, at $1 per bushel $175 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel upon both sides, makes the following | 

FINDINGS OP PACT. 

~>;I. There were taken from the claimant, Robert A. Dickson, in James County, Tenn. , 
during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United 
States, for the use of the Army, stores and supplies as above described which at the 
time and place of taking were reasonably worth the sum of one hundred and forty-two 
dollars ($142). 

It does not appear that any payment has been made for any part thereof. 

By the Court. 

Filed May 14, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 24th day of May, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clei'Tc Court of Claims. 

LYDIA DILLARD. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No 11267. Lydia Dillard v. The United States.] 

This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fm*- 
nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for 
the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Lydia 
Dillard, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the 
same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States 
throughout said war. 

By THE Court. 

Filed November 19, 1906. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11267. Lydia Dillard v. The United States.]) 
STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken 
by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late 
war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Committee 
on War Claims, House of Representatives, on the 12th day of January, 1904. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 19th day of November, 1906, found that 
the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were 
alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- 
out said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 7th day of January, 1907. 

C. A. & F. W. Brandenburg appeared for claimant and the Attorney-General, by 
James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes the following allegations: 

That during the said war she was a resident of Maury County, State of Tennessee, 
and was the owner and possessor in said county and State of certain quartermaster 
stores and commissary supplies, which in the summer of 1863 were seized and appro- 
priated to the use of the military forces of the United States then stationed and oper- 
ating in said locality, according to the following statement: 

1 horse $150. 00 

The court, upon the evidence and after the consideration of briefs and after hearing 
the arguments of the respective counsel, makes the following 

FINDING op pact. 

^ During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United 
States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took from the claimant in Maury 



286 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

County, State of Tennessee, one horse, as above stated, which at the time and place 
of^taking was reasonably worth the sum of one hundred dollars ($100). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

By the Court. 

Filed January 14, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 28th day of January, 1907. 

[seal.] • John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

WARHAM EASLEY. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case Nos. 10957 and 11318. Warham Easley v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the miltary forces of the United States for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims, House of Representatives, on the 4th day of March, 1904. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 26th day of October, 1903, found that 
the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or fi-om whom they were 
alleged to have been taken , was loyal to the Government of the United States through- 
out said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 12th day of January, 1905, 

Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by G. M. 
Anderson, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

That he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Loudon County, State of 
Tennessee, where he resided during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion; 
that during said war there were taken from petitioner by the United States military 
forces acting under proper authority, and converted to the use of the United States 
Army, quartermaster stores and commissary supplies, of the kinds and value below 
stated, to wit: 

Taken from the farms of petitioner, near Rutledge, Tenn., by Col. Frank 
Wolford's cavalry, in December, 1863, 823 bushels of wheat, at $1 per 
bushel $823. 00 

Taken from river farm, belonging to claimant, about December 15, 1863, 
by troops under command of Capt. Amos B. Cole, of Gen. R. B. Potter's 
command, 2,000 bushels of corn, at $1 per bushel 2, 000. 00 

Taken by same troops from home farm near Rutledge, Tenn., about 
December 15, 1863 : 

30 sheep, at $2 each 60. 00 

28 head of cattle, averaging 650 pounds each, at $25 each 700. 00 

Taken in December, 1864, from said farms by Captain Higgins, under 
command of General Burbridge, from Bean Station, 6 head of cattle, 
averaging 800 pounds each, at $25 each 150. 00 

Delivered to Lieutenant True, A. A. Q. M., about December, 1864, 1,500 
bushels of corn, at $1 per bushel 1, 500. 00 

Total 5, S33. 00 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OP FACT. 

There was taken from the claimant in the county of Loudon, State of Tennessee, 
during the war of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States, for the 
use of the Army, property of the kind and character described in the petition, which 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 287 

was then and there reasonably worth the sum of two thousand eight hundred and 
seven dollars ($2,807), for which no payment appears to have been made. 

By the Court. 
Filed January 16, 1905. 
A true copy. 

Test this 17th day of January, 1905. 
[seal.] Archibald Hopkins, 

Chief Clerk. 

EDWARD W. EGGLESTON. 

[Court of Claims. Edward W. Eggleston v. The United States. Congressional, No. 4879.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or 
furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war 
for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that 
Edward W. Eggleston, deceased, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies 
or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the 
Government of the United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed January 14, 1907. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 4879. Edward W. Eggleston v. The United States.) 
statement of case. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken 
by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for then- use during the late 
war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted to the court by the Committee 
on War Claims, House of Representatives, on the 10th day of July, 1888. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 14th day of January, 1907, found that the 
person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged 
to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said 
war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 30th day of January, 1907. 

C. A. & F. W. Brandenburg, esqs., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by George M. Anderson, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations : 

That he is a citizen of the United States and during said war resided in Williamson 
County, State of Tennessee, and was the owner and possessor on his farm in said 
county and State of Tennessee of certain quartermaster stores and commissary supplies, 
which in the spring of 1863 were seized and appropriated to the use of the military 
forces of the United States then stationed and operating in said locality, according to 
the following bill of items: 

4 Mules, at |150 each |600 

1 horse 150 



Total 750 

The court, upon the evidence and after the consideration of briefs and after hearing 
the arguments of the respective counsel, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

There was taken from the claimant in Williamson County, State of Tennessee, dur- 
ing the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United 
States, by proper authority, property of the kind and character described in the peti- 
tion, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of five hun- 
dred and ninety dollars (|590). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

By the Court. 

Filed February 4, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 16th day of December, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

_j -' Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



288 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

JOSEPH EWING. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11266. Joseph Ewing'r.2The7United[States.] 

This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or 
furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war 
for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that 
Joseph Ewing, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from 
whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of 
the United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. ', 

Filed January 23, 1905. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional ease No. 11266. JosepliJEwing v. The United States.] 
] statementJofJcase. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for theii- use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims. House of Representatives, on the 12th day of January, 
1904. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 23d day of January, 1905, found that 
the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were 
alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States thjough- 
out said war. 

This case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 5th day of April, 1905. 

C. A. Brandenburg, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by John 
Q. Thompson, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

That he is a citizen of the United States, residing at Columbia, Maury County, 
State of Tennessee, where he resided during the late war of the rebellion; that at 
different times during said period the United States forces, by proper authority, took 
from your petitioner quartermaster stores and commissaiy supplies valued at $300 
and appropriated the same to the use of the United States Army, as follows: 

Taken by Funkhouser's command, Maury County, Tenn., in 1863: 

1 horse -. $150 

1 mule 150 

Total 300 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

There was taken from the claimant in Maury County, State of Tennessee, during 
the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States, 
for the use of the Army, property of the kind and character above described, which 
was then and there reasonably worth the sum of ninety dollars (190). 
No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

By the Court. 
Filed April 10, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 22d day of December, 1905. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cla-k Court of Claims. 

JOHN B. McEWEN, EXECUTOR OF LEMUEL FARMER. 

[Court "of Claims. Congressional, No. 2547. John B. McEwen, executor of Lemuel Farmer, deceased, 

V. The United States.] 

This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- 
nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for 
the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Lemuel 



ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 289 

Farmer, deceased, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or 
from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loj^al to the Government of 
the United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 
Filed January 14, 1907. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 2547. John B. McEwen, executor estate of Lemuel Farmer, 

deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims, House of Representatives, on the 6th day of March, 1888. 

On a preliminary inquiry the coui't, on the 14th day of January, 1907, found that 
the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were 
alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- 
out said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 4th day of March, 1907. 

C. A. & F. W. Brandenburg, esqs., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-Gen- 
eral, by George E. Boren, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

That said Lemuel Farmer, now deceased, during the said war was a resident of 
Williamson County, State of Tennessee, and the owner and possessor on his farm in 
said county and State of certain quartermaster stores and commissary supplies, which 
in the fall of 1864 were seized and appropriated to the use of the military forces of the 
United States then stationed and operating in said locality, according to the following 
bill of items: 

200 panels of board fence, including posts $132. 00 

4,000 rails (40 cords), at $3 per cord 120. 00 

11,400 pounds of fodder and oats 114. 00 

35 ban-els (175 bushels) of corn, at $1 a bushel 175. 00 

1 fine saddle horse 150. 00 

2 extra work mules, at |140 each , 280. 00 

Total 971. 00 

The court, upon the evidence and after the consideration of briefs and after hearing 
the arguments of the respective counsel, makes the following 

FINDING OF FACT. 

There was taken from the claimant's decedent in Williamson County, State of 
Tennessee, during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces 
of the United States by proper authority for the use of the army, property of the 
kind and character above described, which was then and there reasonably worth the 
sum of three hundred and forty dollars ($340). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

By the Court. 

Filed March 11, 1907. 

t; A true copy. 

1: Test this 12th day of December, A. D. 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

W. F. FORBESS, ADMINISTRATOR. 

Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12296. W. F. Forbess, administrator of Archie B. Forbess, 
i.-k, , deceased, v. The United States.] 

statement of case. 

The following bill was referred to the court on the 31st day of March, 1906, by reso- 
lution of the House of Representatives under an act of Congress approved March 3, 
1887, known as the Tucker Act: 

H. Rep. 543, 60-1 19 



290 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIX CLAIMS. 

"[H. R. 15095, Fifty-seventli Congress, first session.] 
" A BILL for the relief of Archie B. Forbes. 

" jBe it enacted by the Senate andHovse of Representatives of the UnitedStates of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay to Archie B. Forbess, of Brinkley, Arkansas, the sum of 
fourteen thousand five hundred dollars for property taken for the use of United States 
Army, or such sum as may be equitably found due him by the United States Court 
of Claims, the evidence filed herewith to be duly considered." 

The claimant appeared and filed his petition in this court May 29, 1906, in which 
lie makes the following allegations: 

That Archie B. Forbess, deceased, was aloyalcitizenof the United States during the 
war for the suppression of the rebellion; that about March 1, 1864, resided upon a farm 
about 25 miles from the city of Memphis, Tenn., when United States troops imder 
the command of General Sherman took and hauled away as supplies for the use of the 
army — 

25 bales of lint cotton, weighing 12,500 pounds, A^alued at $1.10 per pound §13, 750 

1 large young mule 250 

Destroyed one mill valued at 500 

Amounting in all to 14, 500 

That said Archie B. Forbess has never been paid for said property or any part 
thereof. 

The case was brought to a hearing on lovalty and merits on the 18th day of Decem- 
ber, 1906. 

Charles W. Clagett appeared for the claimant and the Attorney-General, by W. W. 
Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and pro- 
tection of the interests of the United States. 

The coiKt, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OP FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that Archie B. Forbess. deceased, was loyal to the 
Government of the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the 
rebellion. 

II. Dming the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the 
United States, for the use of the Army, by proper authority took from the claimant's 
"decedent in Memphis, Tenn., property as above described, which was then and there 
reasonably worth the sum of twenty-six hundred dollars (§2,600); of which amount 
twenty-five hundred dollars (|2,500) is for cotton, but whether said cotton was used 
for hospital purposes or sold and the proceeds deposited in the Treasury does not 
appear from the evidence. 

II. This claim was not presented to any department of the Government prior to its 
presentation to Congress and reference to this court as aforesaid, and no e^ddence has 
been offered by the claimant bearing upon the question of delay or laches in prosecuting 
«aid claim nor any facts bearing upon the question whether the bar of any statute of 
limitation should be removed or which shall be claimed to excuse the claimant for not 
having resorted to any established legal remedy. 

By the Court. 

Filed December 24, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 29th day of December, 1906. 

[sEAii.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claim?. 

RIAL FOSTER. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 112G4. Rial Foster v. The United States.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- 
nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for 
the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, .finds that Rial 
Foster, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 291 

same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States 
throughont said war. 

By the Court. 
Filed November 19, 1906. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11264. Rial Foster v. The United States.] 
STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims, House of Representatives, on the 12th day of January, 1904. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 19th day of November, 1906, found that 
the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were 
alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- 
out said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 7th day of January, 1907. 

C. A. & F. W. Brandenburg appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations : 

That during said war he was a resident of Maury County, State of Tennessee, and 
was the owner and possessor in said county and State of certain quartermaster stores 
and commissary supplies which in the summer of 1863 were seized and appropriated 
to the use of the military forces of the United States then stationed and operating in 
said locality, according to the following bill of items: 

2 horses, at $150 each • |300 

The court, upon the evidence and after the consideration of briefs and after hearing 
the arguments of the respective counsel, makes the following 

FINDING OF FACT. 

During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United 
States, by proper authority, for the use of the army, took from claimant in Maury 
County, Tenn., property as above described, which at the time and place of taking 
was reasonably worth the sum of one hundred and thirty-five dollars ($135). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

By THE Court. 

Filed January 14, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 29th day of January, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

JULIA GAILEY. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11276. Julia Gailey, heir of Hiram Gailey, deceased, v. The 

United States.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- 
nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the 
suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Hiram 
Gailey, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the 
same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States 
throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed January 9, 1905. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11276. Julia Gailey, sole heir of Hiram Gailey, deceased, v. 

The United States.] 

statement of case. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken 
by or furnished to the military forces of the IFnited States for their use during the late 



292 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Committee 
on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 26th day of January, 1904. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 9th day of January, 1905, found that the 
person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged 
to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the 
said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 13th day of February, 1905. 

Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by George M. 
Anderson, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. . 

The claimant in her petition makes the following allegations : 

The petitioner is a citizen of the United States and now a resident of the county of 
Franklin, State of Arkansas: that she is the widow and sole heir of Hiram Gailey, 
deceased, who during the late civil war was a citizen of the United States, residing in 
Wayne 'County, State of Tennessee; that during said war the United States military 
forces, acting under proper authority, took from said decedent and converted to the 
use of the United States Army quartermaster stores and supplies of the kinds and 
values below stated, to wit: 

1 bay horse S120. 00 

100 bushels of corn, at $1 per bushel 100. 00 

600 bmidles of fodder 12. 00 

Total 232. 00 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

There was taken from the claimant's decedent, in the county of Wa^aie, State of 
Tennessee, during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces of 
the United States, for the use of the Army, property of the kind and character above 
described which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of two hundred and 
thirty-two dollars fS232), for which no payment appears to have been made^ 

By the Court. 

Filed February 20, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 6th day of December, 1905. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

GEORGE W. PEARSON, ADMINISTRATOR. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 119S6. Heirs of Charles Gotthardt, deceased, r. The United 

States.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or 
furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war 
for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquuy, finds that 
Charles Gotthardt, deceased, the person alleged to luiA'e furnished such supplies or 
stores or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Gov- 
ernment of the United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed May 7, 1906. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 1198ti. George W. Pearson, administrator of Charles Gotthardt, 

deceased, r. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during 
the late" war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims, House of Rei:)resentatives, on the 9th day of January, 1906. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 7th day of May, 1906, found that the 
person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged 
to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout 
said war. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 293 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 8th day of January, 1907. 

Ralston & Siddons, esqs., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
George M. Anderson, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

Petitioner is a resident of Perry County, Tenn., and is the duly qualified adminis- 
trator of the estate of Charles Gotthardt, deceased. 

Thi'oughout the war of the rebellion said Charles Gotthardt resided in Perry County, 
Tenn., and remained loyal to the Government of the United States. 

During said war, in May, 1863, forces of the United States Army, being a detach- 
ment of the Sixth Tennessee. Cavalry, commanded by Lieut. Col. W. K. M. Brecken- 
ridge, in Perry County, Tenn., took from said decedent for military purposes the 
following quartermaster stores, then and there reasonably worth the prices stated: 

Four hundred and fifty sides of sole leather, at $7 |3, 150 

Feed for 80 men and horses, one day ' 50 

Total .3, 200 

No payment has been made for the same or any part thereof. 

That on June 16, 1868, the decedent presented both items of this claim to a State 
claims commission and the same was duly investigated and approved in full by the 
board of commissioners for Perry County, by the general claims commission for the 
State of Tennessee, and by the Hon. W. G. Brownlow, then governor of said State. 

That the decedent thereafter presented said claim to the Commissioner of Claims, 
act of March 3, 1871; that he died after the proof had been taken to establish the 
claim, and thereupon, although his heirs were in fact loyal, and one of his sons had 
been, as the testimony before said Commission disclosed, a Union soldier during the 
war, this claim, was disallowed because of alleged failure to prove the loyalty of said 
heirs. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDING OP PACT. 

There was taken from the claimant's decedent in Perry County, State of Tennessee, 
by the militaiy forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the 
Army, leather as above described, which at the time and place of taking was reason- 
ably worth the sum of fifteen hundred and seventy-five (1,575) dollars, no part of 
which appears to have been paid. 

No allowance is made for meals furnished to men or for feed for horses. 

By the Court. 

Filed January 14, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 21st day of January, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

JOHN W. HARVEY, JR., ADMINISTRATOR. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 3318. John W. Harvey, jr., administrator of Z. H. German, 

deceased, v. The United States.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- 
nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for 
the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Z. H. 
German, deceased, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or 
from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of 
the United States throughout said war. 

By the Ci.iurt. 

Filed May 28, 1906. 

ICourt of Claims. Congressional, No. 3318. John W. Harvey, jr., administrator of Z. H. German, 

deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The claim in the 'above-entitled case for supplies, or stores, alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during 



294 AULiOWAisrcE or certain claims. 

the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims, House of Representatives, on the 30th day of March, 1888. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 28th day- of May, 1906, found that the 
person alleged to have furnished the sapplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged 
to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout 
said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 14th day of November, 1906. 

C. A. and F. W. Brandenburg, esqs., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by John Q. Thompson, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared 
for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

That claimant was a citizen of the United States and a resident of Williamson 
County, State of Tennessee, and was the owner and possessor on his farm in said 
county of certain mules and a horse, which in the spring of 1864 were seized and 
appropriated to the use of the military forces of the United States, then stationed 
and operating in said locality, according to the following bill of items: 

3 serviceable mules, at |160 $480 

1 serviceable horse : 150 

Total 630 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and hearing arguments 
of the respective counsel, makes the following 

* 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

During the war for the suppression of the rebellion there was taken from the claim- 
ant's decedent in Williamson County, State of Tennessee, by the military forces of the 
United States for the use of the Army, by proper authority, property as above described 
which, at the time and place of taking, was reasonably worth the sum of five hundred 
dollars ($500). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

By the Court. 

Filed December 3, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 6th day of December, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

'Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

W. 0. BATEY, ADMINISTRATOR OF JOHN HAYNES. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 4440. Heirs of John Hajmes v. The United States.] 

This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- 
nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the 
suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquuy, finds that John 
Haynes, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the 
same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United 
States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed February 25, 1907. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 4440. W. O. Batey, administrator of John Haynes, deceased, 

V. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies, or stores, alleged to have been 
taken by or fumisjied to the military forces of the United States for their use during the 
late war for the suppression of the rebellion was trausniitted to the court by the Commit- 
tee on War Claims, House of Representatives, on the 1st day of May, 1888. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 25th day of February, 1907, found that the 
person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged 
to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States tnroughout said 
war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 22d day of October, 1907. 



ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 295 

C. A. and F. W. Brandenburg, esqs., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-Gen- 
eral, by A. C. Campbell, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

That said John Haynes, now deceased, during the said war was a resident of Ruther- 
ford County, State of Tennessee, and was the owner and possessor on his fai'm in said 
county and State of certain quartermaster stores and commissary supplies, which in the 
spring of 1863 were seized and appropriated to the use of the military forces of the 
United States then stationed and operating in said locality, according to the following 
bill of items: 

1,200 bushels of corn $720 

1,500 pounds of fodder 15Q 

Total 870 

The court, upon the evidence and after the consideration of briefs and after hearing 
the arguments of the respective counsel, makes the following 

FINDING OF FACT. 

^During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United 
States, for the use of the Army, by proper authority, took from the claimant's dece- 
dent in Rutherford County, State of Tennessee, property of the kind and character 
above described, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the 
sum of six hundred and seventy-five dollars (|675). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

By the Court. 

Filed October 28, 1907. 

A true copy. • 

Test this 16th day of December, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

JOHN G. HENSON, ADMINISTRATOR, ETC. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 8846. C. J. and S,L. Oilson v. The United States.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or 
furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war 
for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that 
Catherine J. Gilson and Samuel L. Gilson, the persons alleged to have furnished such 
supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, were loyal 
to the Government of the United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed May 31, 1904. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 8846. John G. Hanson, guardian of Mrs. Catherine J. Gilson 
(insane), stnd adfainistrator of estate of Samuel L. Gilson, deceased, v. The United States.] 

statement of case. 

The claims in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, were transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 26th day of March, 
1892. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 31st day of May, 1904, found that Mrs. 
Catherine J. Gilson and Samuel L. Gilson, deceased, the persons alleged to have 
furnished the supplies or stores or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, 
were loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 8th day of January, 1907. 

Moyers & Consaul appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by James 
A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant, John G. Henson, in his petition makes the following allegations: 

That he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Knox, 
State of Tennessee; that he is the duly appointed, qualified, and acting guardian of 



296 AUiOWAisrcE of certain claims. 

the person and estate of Catherine J-. Gilson, now a person of insane mind, and is also 
the duly appointed, qualified, and acting administrator of the estate of Samuel L. 
Gilson, deceased, the late huslaand of said Catherine J. Gilson; that said Catherine 
J. Gilson resides with petitioner in said county of Knox, State of Tennessee; that 
said Samuel L. Gilson was a resident of said county and State until the time of his 
death. 

That during the late civil war said Catherine J. Gilson and said Samuel L. Gilson 
were citizens of the United States and residents of the county of Knox, State of Ten- 
nessee; that during said war the United States military foi'ces, acting under proper 
authority, took from said Catherine J. Gilson and said Samuel L. Gilson, for use 
of the United States Army, quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the kinds 
and values below stated, to wit: 

Taken from farm about 7 miles west of Knoxville, Tenn., by troops under General 
Burnside, about November 16, 1863: 

1,000 bushels of corn, at SI per bushel SI, 000 

600 dozen sheaf oats, at 50 cents per dozen 300 

20 tons of hay, at S20 per ton 400 

Total 1, 700 

That claims were presented by said Catherine J. GUson and said Samuel L. Gilson to 
the Quartermaster-General for compensation for the property so taken, but that said 
claims were rejected for the reason that said officer was not satisfied with the evidence 
offered in support of said claims. 

That of the property above mentioned said Catherine J. Gilson and said Samuel L. 
Gilson were equal owners in the corn and oats, but that said hay was the individual and 
sole property of said Catherine J. Gilson. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of coun- 
sel upon both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS or FACT. 

There was taken from Catherine J. Gilson and Samuel L. Gilson (the latter of whom is 
deceased), in Knox County, Tenn., during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, 
by the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, 
property as above described, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably 
worth the sum of nine hundred and forty-five dollars (S945), no part of which appears to 
have been paid. 

By the Court. 

Filed January 15, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 22d y of January, 1907. 

[sEAi*.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clei'k Court of Claims. 

W. R. HENSON, ADMINISTRATOR. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 5183. W. R. Henson, administrator of John Henson, deceased, 
V. The United States.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- 
nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for 
the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that John 
Henson, deceased, the person alleged to have fm'nished such supplies or stores, or from 
whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the 
United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

FUed April 11, 1905. 

(Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 5183. W. R. Henson, administrator of estate of John Ilenson, 
deceased, v. The United States.] 

statement of case. 

The claim in the al)ove-entitlod case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken 
by or fumished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late 
war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Committee 
on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 10th day of July, 1888. 



ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 297 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 11th day of April, 1904, found that the 
person alleged to have furnished the supplies or'stores, or from whom they were alleged 
to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said 
war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 6th day of November, 1905. 

Cyrus Snyder, esq., appeared for claimant, Moyer & Consaul, of counsel, and the 
Attorney-General, by P. M. Ashford, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, 
appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant, in his petition, makes the following allegations: 

That he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Sequatchie, 
State of Tennessee; that petitioner is the duly appointed, qualified, and acting admin- 
istrator of the estate of John Henson, deceased, late of said county and State, under 
appointment by county court of said county; that during the late civil war said dece- 
dent resided in said county and State and was a citizen of the United States; that 
dm-ing said war the United States military forces, under proper authority, took from 
said decedent and converted to the use of the United States Army quartermaster 
stores and commissary supplies of the kinds and values below stated, to wit: 

Taken from farms of decedent on east side of Waldens Ridge, about 30 miles south- 
east of Chattanooga, by troops under command of Capt. William Pryor, Sixth Tennes- 
see Mounted Infantry, by troops under General Wilder, by troops under command of 
Capt. L. S. Kilbourne, Seventy-second Indiana Infantry, by Colonel Palmer and 
wagon trains, in the fall of 1863, after the battle of Chickamauga, and in the winter of 
1864 and 18'65: 

49,950 rails, at |3 per 100 |1, 378. 50 

500 cords standing wood, at 75 cents per cord 375. 00 

84 bushels of wheat, at $1.50 per bushel 126. 00 

300 bushels of old corn, at 75 cents per bushel 225. 00 

4,200 bushels of corn, at 75 cents per bushel 3, 150. 00 

845 bushels of corn, at 75 cents per bushel 633. 00 

500 bushels thrashed oats, at 50 cents per bushel 250. 00 

2 mules, at |125 each .■ . . / • 250. 00 

1 black mare 85. 00 

1 black mare 125. 00 

1 sorrel mare 100. 00 

Total 6, 697. 50 

The court upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of coun- 
sel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

There was taken from the claimant's decedent, in Sequatchie County, State of Ten- 
nessee, during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces 
of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, property of the kind 
and character above described, which was then and there reasonably worth the sum 
of two thousand nine hundred and ninety dollars (|2,990), for which no payment 
appears to have been made. 

By the Court. 

Filed December 4, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 5th day of January, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

JOHX A. HERROD. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 7290. John A. Herrod v. The United States.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or 
furnished to the military forces of the United States for then- use during the^late war 
for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that 
John A. Herrod, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from 
whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the 
United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed December 10, 1900. 



298 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIK CLAIMS. 

[Court oi Claims. Congressional, No. 7290. John A. Herrod v. The United States.] 
STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the aboA"e-entitled case for supplies, or stores, alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use dui'ing 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the com't by the 
Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 17th day of February, 
1890. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 10th day of December, 1900, found 
that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they 
were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of- the United States 
throughout said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 8th day of February, 1905. 

George A. & William B. King, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by Charles F. Kincheloe, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared 
for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

That during the civil war he was a resident of the State of Tennessee and did not 
give any aid or comfort to the said rebellion, but was throughout that war loyal to 
the Government of the United States. 

That the following property belonging to him was taken from him by the United 
States and used by the said Army, the date, place, and command being particularly 
stated below: 

In Rutherford County, in the State of Tennessee, on or about 25th day of January, 
1863, by United States "forces, to wit, F. D. Preston, A. A. Q. M. of Colonel Wilder's 
regiment, viz: 

2 bay mare mules, at $150 each |300. 00 

1 sorrel stallion 300. 00 

Total 600. 00 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

riNDING OF FACTS. 

There was taken from the claimant in the County of Rutherford, State of Tennes- 
see, during the war of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States, for 
the use of the Army, property of the kind and character above described, which was 
then and there reasonably worth the sum of four hundred dollars ($400). 

No payment appears to haA^e been made therefor. 

By the Court. 

Filed February 13, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 8th day of Februaiy, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

CHARLES W. HEWGLEY. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional. No. 5038. Charles W. Hewgley v. The United States.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- 
nished to the military forces of the United States for then- use during the late war for 
the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Charles 
W. Hewgley. the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from 
whom the saine are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the 
United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed December 10, 1900. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 5038. Charle,? W. Hewgley v. The United States.] 

statement of case. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies, or stores, alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their use during the 



ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. 299 

late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Com- 
mittee on War Claims, House of Representatives, on the 10th day of July, 1888. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 18th day of December, 1906, found that 
the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were 
alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- 
out said war. 

The case was brotight to a hearing on its merits on the 7th day of January, 1907. 

C. A. & F. W. Brandenburg, esqs., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by Judge John Q. Thompson, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

That during the war he was a resident of Wilson County, State of Tennessee, and 
was the owner and possessor on his farm in said county and State of certain quarter- 
master stores and commissary supplies, which, in the fall of 1862, were seized and 
appropriated to the use of the military forces of the United States, then stationed and 
operating in said locality, according to the following bill of items: 

6 hogs, at 112.25 each $73. 50 

4 sheep, at |2.50 each 10. 00 

5 barrels of corn, at $2.50 each 12. 50 

250 barrels of corn, at $2.50 625. 00 

2 mules, at $150 300. 00 

1 barrel of salt 10. 00 

Total 1, 031. 00 

The court, upon the evidence and after the consideration of briefs and after hearing 
the arguments of the respective counsel, makes the following 

FINDING OF FACT. 

There was taken from the claimant in Wilson County, State of Tennessee, during 
the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States, 
by proper authority, for the use of the Army, property as above described, which at 
the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of five hundred and eighty 
dollars ($580). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

By the Court. 

Filed January 14, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 24th day of January, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

DAVID H. HILDERBRAND. 

fCourt of Claims. Congressional, No. 188. David H. Hildebrandt v. The United States.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or 
fm-nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war 
for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that 
David H. Hildebrandt, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, 
or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government 
of the United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed December 14, 1885. 

Court of Claims. Congressional, Nos. 188 and 12069, consolidated. David H. Hilderbrand v. The 

United States.] 

statement of case. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was first transmitted to the court 
by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 22d day of 
December, 1884, for findings of fact under the terms of the act approved March 3, 
1883, and commonly known as the Bowman Act. 



300 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIKT CLAIMS, 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 14th day of December, 1885, found that 
the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were 
alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- 
out said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits, and findings of fact were filed 
February 1, 1886, which findings were certified to the Speaker of the House of Rep- 
resentatives. On January 23, 1906, the claim was again referred to this covuct by said 
Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives for further proceedings 
under the terms of said act approved March 3, 1883, and commonly known as the 
Bowman Act. The case was brought to a second hearing on its merits on the 7th 
day of May, 1906. 

Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by W. W. Scott, 
esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of 
the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations : 

That he is a citizen of the United States, now residing in the county of Sacramento, 
State of California; that during the late civil war he was a citizen of the United States, 
residing in the county of Shelby, State of Tennessee; that during said war the United 
States miltary forces, under proper authority, took from petitioner and converted to- 
the use of the United States Army quartermaster stores and supplies of the kinds 
and values below described, to wit: 

3 horses, at $145 each $435. 00 

2 mules, at §155 each 310. 00 

Total. 745. 00 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel upon both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OP FACT. 

I. There was taken from the claimant during the war for the suppression of the 
rebellion, in the county of Shelby, State of Tennessee, by the military forces of the 
United States, for the use of the Army, by proper authority, supplies of the kind 
and character above described, which were then and there reasonably worth the sum 
of four hundred and eighty dollars (§480), for which no payment appears to have 
been made. 

By the Court. 

Filed May 14, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 19th day of May, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clnk Court of Claims. 

HEIRS OF THOMAS HORD. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 10982. Sarah Bibb, Ada B. Ewing, Alice G. Warner, Benja- 
min M. Hord, Mildred Washington, and Thomas E. Hord, sole heirs of Thomas Hord, deceased, v. 
The United States.] 

statement of case. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to ha-\e been taken 
by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late 
war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted to the court by the Committee 
on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 3d day of February, 1903. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 23d day of May, 1904, found that the per- 
son alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom thej' were alleged to 
have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said 
war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 31st day of January. 1905.. 

G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by W. W. 
Scott, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and pro- 
tection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimants in their petition make the following allegations: 

That they are the children and sole heirs of Thomas Hord, deceased, who resided 
at the time of his death, and during the late civil war, in Rutherford County, State 
of Tennessee. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 301 

That during the late civil war the militai');' forces of the United States, by proper 
authority, took from the said Thomas Hord, in said county and State, and appropri- 
ated to the use of the Army for hospital purposes 37,000 pounds of seed cotton of 
the value of 15 cents per pound, amounting to the sum of 15,550. That said cotton 
was taken byDoctor Wood, of the medical department of Gen. W. S. Rosencrans's 
command, in January, 1863. 

The court, upon the evidence, aiid after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United 
States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, in Rutherford County, State of 
Tennessee, took from the claimants' decedent property of the kind and character 
above described, whicji was then and there reasonably worth the sum of two thou- 
sand nine hundred and thirteen dollars (S2,913). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

By the Court. 

Filed February 6, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 3d day of June, 1905. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

FINDINGS IN CASE OF JOHN HUGHES.. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-78. John Hughes v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Committee 
on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The 
case was broiight to a hearing on its merits on the 1st day of April, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker and Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Shelby, 
in the State of Tennessee. 

2. That he, being the captain of Company A, Twenty-second Regiment of Kentucky 
Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the 
State of Kentucky as major thereof on October 15, 1863, and that from and after said 
date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until February 24, 
1864, when he was mustered in as such; said regiment was continuously below the 
minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, 
he was refused muster and recognition in the grade of major during said period. 

3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances 
of a captain, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of major. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other 
evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following 

FINDINGS OP PACT. 

1. John Hiighes, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and 
resident in the coimty of Shelby, in the State of Tennessee. 

2. On October 15, 1863, the said John Hughes was captain of Company A, Twenty- 
second Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was 
mustered into the service — to wit, on February 25, 1864 — the same was and continued 
to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Order No. 182 of the War 
Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress 
approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L.', p. 734). 

The major of said Twenty-second Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry being then 
and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of major devolved upon this 
claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all the duties of major 
of said Twenty-second Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry. 



302 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

The governor of the State of Kentucky also issued to this claimant a commission 
as major Twenty-second Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry. 

3. On the said October 15, 1863, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused 
to muster this claimant as major of said Twenty-second Regiment Kentucky Volunteer 
Infantry solely because his command was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, 
although he continued to perform the duties of major until he was mustered into the 
service as such February 15, 1864. 

4. If the said John Hughes should be deemed major of Twenty-second Regiment 
Kentucky Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay of that grade, the difference 
between his pay and allowances as a captain, which he has received, and that of a 
major, to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered for the period 
from October 15, 1863, to February 14, 1864, would amount to $43.33 (forty-three 
dollars and thirty-three cents), as reported by the Auditor for the War Department. 

By the Court. 
Filed Aprill, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 2d day of April, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

BENJAMIN F. LILLARD. 

ICourt of Claims. Congressional, 11173. Benjamia F. Lillard, administrator of the estate of Benja- 
min Lillard, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court on the 18th day of March, 1903, by 
resolution of the United States House of Representatives under an act of Congress 
approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act: 

" [H. R. 10128. Fifty-seventh Congress, first session.] 

"A BILL Authorizing the heirs of Benjamin Lillard, of Teimessee, to present their claims to the Court 

of Claims. 

' ' Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the heirs of Benjamin Lillard be, and they are hereby, 
authorized and empowered to present to the Court of Claims for adjudication their 
claim for property lost, destroyed, and taken and used by the United States forces 
during the late rebellion, said claim not to amount to more than seventy thousand 
eight hundred and ninety-five dollars, and all statutes of limitation are hereby waived. 
Jurisdiction is hereby conferred on the Court of Claims to hear and determine the 
said claim upon its merits, the loyalty of the parties being established. In consid- 
ering the claim any testimony taken by the agent of the Quartermaster-General, 
the affidavits of witnesses on file, and the declarations filed in the departments of the 
Quartermaster-General and the Commissary-General, and the petitions filed before 
the Southern Claims Commission by the administrator of Benjamin Lillard, deceased, 
shall be considered by the court competent evidence." 

The claimant appeared and filed his petition in this court March 19, 1903, alleging, 
in substance, that he is a citizen of the United States, that Benjamin Lillard, de- 
ceased, was a loyal citizen of the United States during the war of the rebellion; that 
during said war the United States forces, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, 
in Rutherford County, State of Tennessee, took from said decedent the following 
property: 

5,000 bushels of corn seized in 1862 by General Mitchell's division of 

General Buell's army, at 70 cents per bushel $3, 500. 00 

24,000 pounds of hay seized by same forces, at 1 cent per pound 240. 00 

The following property seized by General Rosecrans's arrav January to 
June, 1863: 

600 pounds of bacon hams, at 35 cents per pound 150. 00 

11 pork hogs, at $20 each 220. 00 

200 head of stock hogs, at $5 per head 1, 000. 00 

53 head of cattle, at $10 per head : .' 530. 00 

100 bushels of sweet potatoes, at $3 per bushel 300. 00 

500 bushels of wheat, at $1 per bushel 500. 00 

1,500 bushels of corn, at $1.50 per bushel 2, 250. 00 



ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAUST CLAIMS. 303 

The following property seized by General Rosecrans's army January to 
June, 1863 — Continued. 

21,000 pounds of fodder, at 1 cent per pound $210. 00 

20 tons of hay, at $10 per ton. . ._. 200. 00 

15,500 cords of green wood or timber taken from 155 acres of land on 
homestead tract 1^ to 2^ miles from corporation of Murfreesboro, 

Tenn., at $2.50 per cord 38, 750. 00 

1,890 cords of fence rails from same tract, at dry -fuel rates, at $4 per 

cord .' 7, 560. 00 

1,050 cords of houses, at $4 per cord 4, 220. 00 

33 cords of green wood taken from 22 acres on Rick's tract, about three- 
fourths mile from corporation of said Murfreesboro, at $3 per cord. . . 9, 900. 00 
305 cords fence rails taken from Rick's farm of 109 acres, at dry-fuel 

rates, at |4 per cord .' 200. 00 

145 cords fence rails -taken from MuUins's tract, about 4 miles from 

Murfreesboso, at dry-fuel rates, at $3 per cord 425. 00 

Houses from same tract equal to 50 cords, at dry -fuel rates, at $3 per 

cord 150. 00 

1,500 cords mixed with cedar from Peak tract near Federal Cemetery, 

at $3 per cord 4, 500. 00 

180 cords of fence rails from same, at $4 per cord 720. 00 

100 cords of houses on same tract, at $4 per cord. 400. 00 

10,000 pounds of lint cotton seized and taken awav bv said army, at 
II per pound ' . . .' 10, 000. 00 



Total 87, 155 . 00 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 16th day of Novem- 
ber, 1904. Benjamin F. Lillard, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- 
Oeneral, by P. M. Ashford, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OP PACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that Benjamin Lillard, deceased, the person from 
whom the property is alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of 
the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. 

II. There was taken from the claimant's decedent, in the county of Rutherford, 
State of Tennessee, during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the mili- 
tary forces of the United States for the use of the Army, property of the kind and 
character above described, which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of 
sixteen thousand eight hundred and sixty -five dollars ($16,865). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

The above findings are exclusive of the cotton alleged in the petition to have been 
taken by said military forces, as to which cotton the court makes no finding. 

By the Court. 
Filed December 5, 1904. 

A true copy. 

Test this 19th day of December, 1904. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clei'h Court of Claims. 

E. M. McNAMEE, ADMINISTRATOR. . 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 8425. John Krider v. The United States.] 

This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- 
nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for 
the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that John 
Krider, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom 
the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United 
States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed January 12, 1903. 



304 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIIST CLAIMS. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 8425. E. M. McNamee, administrator of estate of John Krider, 

deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for theii" use dui'ing 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on ^^'ar Claims of the House of Representatives on the 12th day of March, 
1891. 

On a preliminary inquuy the court, on the 12th day of January, 1903, found that 
the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were 
alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- 
out said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 19th day of November, 
1906. 

Moyers & Consaul, esqs., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
F. De C. Faust, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

That he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Fayette, 
State of Tennessee ; that petitioner is the duly appointed, qualified, and acting adminis- 
trator of the estate of John Krider, deceased, late of said county and State, under 
and by virtue of appointment by the probate court in and for said county and State, 
of which appointment petitioner furnishes record evidence; that during the late civil 
war said decedent resided in said county and State; that during said \var the United 
States military forces, under proper authority, took from said decedent and con- 
verted to the use of the United States Army commissary supplies of the kinds and 
values below stated, to wit: 

Taken by troops under command of General Grant, at La Grange, Tenn., about 
December, 1862, or January, 1863: 

1,000 pounds bacon, at 12J cents per pound $125 

46 ban-els flour, at |12 per barrel ". 552 

6 hogsheads sugar, 6,000 pounds, at 15 cents per pound 900 

6 barrels molasses 240 

1 cow 50 

1 cow 50 

Total 1, 917 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel upon both sides, makes the following 

FINDING OF FACT. 

During the war for the suppression of the rebellion there was taken from the 
claimant's decedent in Fayette County, Tenn., by the military forces of the United 
States for the use of the Army property as above described, which at the time 
and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of two hundred and twenty-one 
dollars ($221). 

It does not appear that any payment has been made for any part thereof. 

By the Court. 

Filed December 3, 1906. 

A true copv. 

Test this 19th day of December, 1906. 

[seal.] John* Randolph, ^ ^ 

Assistant Clerk Co^irt of Claims. ; 

WILLIAM H. LANDRUM. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 5125. William H. Landrum v. The United States.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been token by or fm-- 
nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for 
tl\f suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Wil- 
liam H. Landrum, the person alleged to liave furnished such supplies or stores, or 



ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 



305 



from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government 
of the United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 
' Filed .December 8, 1902. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11944. William H. Landrum v. The United States.] 

STATEMEN.T OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion , was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 9th day of January, 
1906. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 8th day of December, 1902, found that 
the person alleged to have fui'nished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were 
alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- 
out said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 19th day of November, 1906. 

Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by W. W. 
Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and pro- 
tection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

That he is now and at all times hereinafter mentioned has been a citizen of the 
United States and a resident of the county of Gibson, State of Tennessee; that during 
the late civil war the United States military forces, by proper authority, took from 
petitioner and converted to the use of the United States Army commissary supplies 
of the kinds and values below stated, to wit: 

2,475 pounds of bacon, at 20 cents per pound $495 

160 pounds lard, at 20 cents per pound 32 

Total.. 527 

(Taken from farm of petitioner, about 2 miles from Dyer, Gibson County, Tenn., 
about January, 18G3,,by command of Captain Beasley, U. S. Army.) 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and argument of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 



FINDINGS OF FACT. 

There was taken from the claimant in Gibson County, State of Tennessee, during 
the war for the suppression of the rebellion by the military forces of the United States, 
for the use of the Army, property of the kind and character described in the petition, 
which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of two hundred 
and fifty -seven dollars (|257). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

By THE Court. 

Filed February 11, 1907. 



A true copy. 

Test this 19th day of February, 1907. 

[seal.] 



John Randolph, 
Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ANNIS LAWRENCE. 
[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 8415. Annis Lawrence v. The United States.] 

This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- 
nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for 
the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Annis 
Lawi'ence, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores or from whom 
the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United 
States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed March 9, 1903. 



H. Rep. 543, 60-1- 



-20 



306 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

[In the Court of Clftims. Congressional case No. 8415. Annis Lawrence r. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during 
the late civil war, was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the 
House of Representatives on the 2d day of March, 1891. 

On a preliminary inquiry, the court, on the 9th day of March, A. D. 1903, found that 
the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores or from whom they were 
alleged to have been taken was loyal to the Government of the United States through- 
out said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 13th day of Februarj^, A. D. 
1905. 

Moyers & Consaul appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by E. C. 
Brandenburg, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

Claimant, in her petition, makes the following allegations: 

That during said war the United States troops under command of General Quimby, 
when camped at Moscow, Tenn., in the winter of 1863 and 1864, took from petitioner 
commissary supplies of the kinds and values below stated, to wit: 

70 hogs, 100 pounds each, at 10 cents per pound $700. 00 

1,000 pounds of pork, at 10 cents per pound 100. 00 

5 bushels of potatoes 5. 00 

5 bushels of shelled corn 5. 00 

Total 810. 00 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

There was taken from the claimant, in the county of Fayette. State of Tennessee, 
during the war of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States for the use 
of the Army, property of the kind and character above described, which was then and 
there reasonably worth the sum of four hundred and fifteen dollars (|415), for which 
no payment appears to have been made. 

By the Court. 

Filed February 20, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 12th day of January, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

JAMES E. MEACHAM. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11550. James E. Meacham v. The United States.] 
STATEMENT OF CASE. 

On April 26, 1904, the following bill was referred to this court by resolution of the 
United States Senate under the act of March 3, 1887, and commonly known as the 
Tucker Act. 

A BILL For the relief of James E. Meacham. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and du-ected to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated 
to James E. Meacham, of Hamilton County, Tennessee, the sum of one thousand six 
hundred dollars, in full payment for the use and occupation of his premises at Chatta- 
nooga, Tennessee, and for the taking and use of his property by the Union Army 
during the civil war. 

The claimant appeared and filed his petition May 31, 1904. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 18th day of January, 
1906. William E. Richardson appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by John Q. Thompson, his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 307 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Eden Park, a suburb 
of Chattanooga, Hamilton County, State of Tennessee. 

2. That during the civil war petitioner resided in Chattanooga, Hamilton County, 
Tenn., and throughout said war he remained loyal to the Government of the United 
States and gave no aid or comfort to the rebellion. 

3. That during said war, in the month of September, 1863, petitioner was the owner 
and in possession of certain premises in said city of Chattanooga, the same being the 
north half of the block bounded by Catherine, Long, Aiken, and William streets, 
described by metes and bounds as follows: 

Beginning at the southeast corner of Catherine and William streets, thence south 
on the east line of William street 140 feet, thence due east 280 feet to the west line 
of Long street, thence north along said west line of Long street 140 feet to the south- 
west corner of Long and Catherine streets, thence west along the south line of Catherine 
street 280 feet to the place of beginning; that said premises were then improved by a 
frame dwelling house, a smokehouse, a stable, and buggy house, and had been, in the 
year 1860, purchased by claimant from one Rufus Tankersly; that said dwelling 
house and other improvements were worth $1,600 and said land worth about $400. 

4. In September, 1863, immediately after the battle of Chickamauga, forces of the 
United States Army occupied said premises and used and occupied the same for army 
hospital purposes for several months, and thereafter, having torn down and removed 
the buildings, fences and improvements thereon, used and occupied said premises ' 
for camping piirposes for several months, for which occupancy the petitioner claims 
as rent the sum of $20 per month for six months. 

5. That during said occupancy, as above stated, the said troops tore down and 
removed from said premises the house and other valuable improvements, making the 
same more suitable for camping purposes, which said acts were in the nature of a vol- 
untary waste, for which the Government is liable to make compensation under its 
implied obligation to leave said premises in the same condition as when received 
from the petitioner, with the exception of the reasonable wear and tear to which they 
would have been subject, and for such waste there is due the petitioner the value of 
said improvements as follows: 

Dwelling house $1, 200 

Outhouses and fences 400 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of coun- 
sel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS or FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the claimant, James E. Meacham, was loyal to 
the Government of the United States during the late war of the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the 
United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took possession of the 
claimant's buildings in Chattanooga, Tenn., and used and occupied the same and 
tore said buildings down and used tlie material therein. The reasonable rental value 
of said buildings during the time they were so occupied and the value of the material 
used by the Army was the sum of seven hundred and fifty dollars ($750), for which 
no payment appears to have been made. 

By the Court. 
I Filed January 29, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 1st day of February, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph. 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

MORA B. FARISS. ADMINISTRATRIX. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11280. Mora B. Fariss, administratrix of James P. Moore, 

deceased, v. The United States.] 

This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- 
nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war 
for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that 
James P. Moore, deceased, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or 



308 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Gov- 
ernment of the United States throughout said war. 

By the CotmT. 
Filed May 1, 1905. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11280. Mora B. Fariss, administratrix of James P. Moore, 

deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on AVar Claims, House of Representatives, on the 26th day of January, 1904. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 1st day of May, 1905, found that the 
person alleged to "have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were 
alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- 
out said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 15th day of May, 1905. C. A. 
Brandenburg, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by F. W. Col- 
lins, esq., his assistant, and imder his direction, appeared for the defense and protec- 
tion of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition m'akes the following allegations: 

That he is a citizen of the United States, and a resident of Columbia, Maury County, 
State of Tennessee; that James P. Moore, deceased, resided during the late war of tfie 
rebellion in said Maury County, State of Tennessee, and was loyal to the United States 
throughout said war; that at different times during said period the United States forces, 
by proper authority, took from said James P. Moore quartermaster stores and supplies 
valued at §5,831.74 and appropriated the same to the use of the United States Army, 
as follows: 

1,773 J bushels of corn, at 90 cents per bushel $1 .596. 00 

3,485 bundles of fodder 54. 85 

15 horses and mules, at §150 each 2, 250. 00 

4,251 feet of lumber, at 2* cents per foot 106. 27 

16,154 rails, at 3 cents each 484. 62 

13 cattle, at $20 each 270. 00 

55 hogs, at §10 each • 550.00 

Meat from 20 hogs 200. 00 

30 sheep, at $5 each 150. 00 

150 bushels of wheat, at SI per bushel 150. 00 

4 barrels of molasses, at §5 per barrel 20. 00 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

There was taken from the claimant's decedent, in Maury County, State of Tennes- 
see, during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces of the 
United States, for the use of the Army, property of the kind and character above 
descril^ed, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of 
twenty-one hundred dollars (§2,100), for which no payment appears to have been 
made. 

By THE Court. 

Filed December 11, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 2d day of January, 1906. 

[seal]. John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

LOUIS NELSON, ADMINISTRATOR. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11317. Samuel B. Nelson v. The United States.] 

This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- 
nished to the military forces of the United States for their use diuing the late war 
for the suppression of the rebellion, the comt, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that 



ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 309 

Samuel B. Nelson, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from 
whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the 
United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 
Filed December 12, 1904. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11317. Louis Nelson, administrator of the estate of Samuel 
B. Nelson, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 4th day of March, 
1904. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 12th day of December, 1904, found 
that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they 
were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States 
throughout said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 22d day of March, 1905. 

Cyrus Snyder, esq., appeared for claimant; Moyers & Consaul, of counsel, and 
the Attorney-General, by George M. Anderson, esq., his assistant, and under his 
direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United 
States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

That he is the duly appointed, qualified, and acting administrator of the estate 
of Samuel B. Nelson, deceased, late of the county of Rutherford, State of Tennes- 
see, where said decedent resided during the late civil war; that during said war the 
United States military forces, under proper authority, took from said decedent and 
converted to the use of the United States Army quartermaster stores and commis- 
sary supplies of the kinds and values below stated, to wit: 

6 good horses, at |125 each $750 

2 good horses, at |150 each 300 

3,000 bushels of corn, at 50 cents per bushel 1, 500 

10 fat beef cattle 336 

8 fat hogs 60 

20 sheep 50 

Total. 2, 996 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDING OF FACT. 

There was taken from the claimant's decedent, Samuel B. Nelson, in Ruther- 
ford County, State of Tennessee, by the military forces of the United States, by 
proper authority, for the use of the Army, property as above described, which at 
the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of two thousand one hun- 
dred and seventy dollars (|2,170). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

By the Court. 

Filed April 10, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 6th day of December, 1905. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

ALEXANDER M. OWEN. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional No. 9767. Alexander M. Owen v. The United States.] 

This case being a claim far supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- 
nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for 
the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Alex- 
ander M. Owen, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from 



310 AIiLOWANCE OP CEETAIN CLAIMS. 

wlioin the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the 
United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 
Filed May 23, 1907. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 9767. Alexander M. Owen v. The United States.] 
STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies, or stores, alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their use diu-ing 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives, on the 19th day of April, 
1.898. 

On the preliminary inquiry the court, on the 23d day of May, 1904, found that the 
person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged 
to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout 
said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 22d day of October, 1907. 

Moyers & Consaul, esqs., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by S. S. 
Ashbaugh, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

That he is a citizen of the United States and is now a resident of the county of John- 
son, State of Texas; that during the late civil war petitioner was a citizen of the United 
States, residing in the county of Tipton, State of Tennessee; that dm-ing said war the 
United States military forces, under proper authority, took fi-om petitioner and con- 
verted to the use of the United States Army quartermaster stores of the kinds and 
values below stated, to wit: 

Taken in April, 1863, by soldiers vmder command of General Lawler: 

2 sorrel horses, at $200 each $400. 00 

1 bay horse 150. 00 

Taken in December, 1863, by Captain Templeton from Fort Pillow: 

1 bay horse 150. 00 



Total 700. 00 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDING OF FACT. 

During the late civil war the military forces of the United States, by proper author- 
ity, for the use of the army, took from the claimant in Tipton County, State of Tennes- 
see, property of -the kind and character described in the petition, which at the time 
and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of four hundred and fortv dollars 
($440). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

By the Court. 

Filed October 28, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 20th day of December, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

MARY PARKER. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11277. Miiry Parker v. The United States.] 
STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above -entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 26th day of January, 
1904. 

On a preliminary inquiry, the court, on the 16th day of March, 1903, foundjthat 
Mary Parker, the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from 



ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 311 

whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the 
United States throughout said war, her loyalty having been decided by the court in 
the Eveline Hixon case. No. 10496. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 1st day of November, 1904. 
G. W. Hott, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by E. C. 
Brandenburg, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interest of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes the following allegations: 
That she is a citizen of the United States, residing in Hamilton County, State of 
Tennessee, where she resided during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion; 
that at different times during said period the military forces of the United States, by 
proper authority, took from her certain quartermaster stores and commissary sup- 
plies and appropriated the same to the use of the United States Army, as follows: 

One-fourth of 143 acres of timber, 25 cords per acre, 893| cords of wood, at 
$1 per cord 1893. 75 

(Taken in 1863 and 1864 by the commands of Generals Hooker, Geary, Howard, 
and others.) 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel of both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

There was taken from the claimant, in Hamilton County, State of Tennessee, 
during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces of the 
United States, by proper authority, for the use of the army, property as above de- 
scribed, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of six 
hundred and fifty-six dollars (|656). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

By the Court. 

Filed December 5, 1904. 

A true copy. 

Test this 30th day of December, 1904. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerh Court of Claims. 

A. P. YOUNG. ADMINISTRATOR. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 7557. John R. Pearson «. The United States.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- 
nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war 
for the supiDression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that 
John R. Pearson, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or 
from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government 
of the United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed May 12, 1902. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12007. A. P. Young, administrator of estate of John R. 
Pearson, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies, or stores, alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 9th day of Jan- 
uary, 1906. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 12th day of May, 1902, found that the 
person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were 
alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- 
out said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 12th day of November, 1906. 

Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by A. C. 
Campbell, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 



312 ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

That he is a citizen of the United States, residing in the county of Shelby, State of 
Tennessee; that he is the duly appointed, qualified, and acting administrator of the 
estate of John R. Pearson, deceased, late of Fayette County, State of Tennessee. 

That said John R. Pearson dming the late civil war resided in the county of Fay- 
ette, State qf Tennessee; that dming said war the United States military forces, 
under proper authority, took from said decedent for use of the Army, quartermaster 
stores and commissary supplies of the kinds and values below stated, to wit: 

Taken by William Manning, lieutenant and acting assistant quartermaster, 
Thii-d Brigade, General Quimby commanding, about Nov. 19, 1862: 

150 bushels corn, at $1 per bushel $150. 00 

7,000 pounds fodder, at 2 cents per pound 140. 00 

1 good horse 150. 00 

4 valuable mules, at |175 each 700. 00 

Taken about January 2, 1863: 

1,000 bushels corn, at §1 per bushel 1, 000. 00 

7,800 pounds fodder, at 2 cents per pound 156. 00 

1 horse 150. 00 

Taken about December 31, 1862: 

50 bushels potatoes, at $1 per bushel 50. 00 

500 pounds pork, at 10 cents per pound 50. 00 

25 pounds of coffee, at 50 cents per pound 12. 50 

50 pounds sausage, at 50 cents per pound 25. 00 

300 pounds dried beef, at 15 cents per pound 45. 00 

300 pounds bacon, at 20 cents per pound 60. 00 

500 pounds fresh beef, at 8 cents per pound 40. 00 

20 pounds of sugar, at 25 cents per pound 5. 00 

1,700 pounds fresh pork, at 10 cents per pound 170. 00 

Taken about July 5, 1864: 

200 pounds bacon, at 40 cents per pound 80. 00 

12 bushels Irish potatoes, at §1 per bushel 12. 00 

300 pounds jjork, at 15 cents per pound 45. 00 

25 pounds of coffee, at 60 cents per pound 15. 00 

15 pounds sugar, at 40 cents per pound 6. 00 

Taken by Colonel Nobles about November 10, 1864: 

2 good mules, at $125 each 250. 00 

Total 3, 311. 50 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel upon hoih sides, makes the following 

FINDING OF FACT. 

I. There were taken from the claimant's decedent, John R. Pearson, hi Fayette 
County, Tenn.-, during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military 
forces of the United States for the use of the Army, stores and supplies as above 
described, which at the time and place of taking were reasonably worth the sum of 
two thousand five hundred and seventy-nine dollars ($2,579). 

It does not appear that any payment has been made for any part thereof. 

By the Court. 

Filed November 19, 1906. 

A true copv. 

Test this 4th day of December, ]906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claivis. 

WILLIAM RAINES. 

[Court of Claims. Congressioual, No. 11286. William Kaines v. The United States.] 

Thi8,case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- 
nished to the militarv forces of the United States for their use during the late war 
for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that 
William Kaines, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIISr CLAIMS. 313 

whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the 
United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 
Filed November 6, 1905. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11286. William Raines v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during 
th§ late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 9th day of February, 
1904. 

On a preliminary inquiry, the court, on the 6th day of November, 1905, found that 
the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were 
alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- 
out said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 12th day of April, 1906. 

Moyers & Consaul, esqs., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
Malcolm A. Coles, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

That he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Claiborne, 
State of Tennessee; that during the late civil war he was a citizen of the county of 
Knox, State of Kentucky; that during said war the United States military forces, 
under proper authority, took from petitioner, for the use of the United States Army, 
quartermaster stores of the kind and value below stated, to wit: 

310 bushels of corn, at 50 cents per bushel |155 

The CQurt, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel upon both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OP FACT. 

I. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military authorities of 
the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took from claimant, 
William Raines, property as above described, which was at the time and place of 
taking reasonably worth the sum of one hundred and fifty- five dollars ($155). 

It does not appear that any payment has been made for any part thereof. 

By the Court. 
Filed April 23, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 29th day of May, 1906. , 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

FRANK READ, ADMINISTRATOR OF JAMES S. READ. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 4067. James S. Read v. The United States.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- 
nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late \yar for 
the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that James 
S. Read, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom 
the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United 
States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

[Covirt of Claims. Congressional case No. 4067. Frank Read, administrator estate of James S. Read, 

deceased, v. The United States.] 

statement of case. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during 



314 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS, 

the late war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims, House of Representatives, on the 20th day of April, 1888. 

On a preliminary inquiry the covirt, on the 29th day of April, 1907, found that the 
person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were 
alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the GoA^ernment of the United States through- 
out said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 28th day of October, 1907. 

C. A. & F. W. Brandenburg, esqs., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by Clai'k McKercher, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared 
for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

That said James S. Read, deceased, during the said war was a resident of Davidson 
County, Tenn. , and was the owner and possessor on his farm in said county and State 
of certain quartermaster stores and commissary supplies, which in the fall of 1864 
were seized and appropriated to the use of the military forces of the United States 
then stationed and operating in said locality, according to the following bill of items: 

2 horses, at $125 $250 

1 wagon, iron axle 100 

3 head of beef cattle 90 

15 pork hogs 75 

75 bushels of corn 75 

2,000 feet cedar lumber, cost 160 

1 ton of hay .' 24 

3,000 cedar rails 150 

10,000 feet of plank fence, cedar posts 250 

150 bushels of coal, at 60 cents 90 

3 cords of wood, at $10 30 

Total 1, 294 

The court, upon the evidence and after the consideration of briefs and after hearing 
the arguments of the respective counsel, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF P.\CT. 

During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United 
States by proper authority took for the use of the Army from claimant's decedent in 
Davidson County, State of Tennessee, the property described in the petition, the 
reasonable value of which at the time and place mentioned above was the sum of 
seven hundred and fifteen dollars ($715). 

No payment appears to have been made for any part thereof. 

By the Court. \ 

Filed November 4, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test: This 16th day of December, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

HEIRS OF JANE E. RODES. 
[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. SSIS. Estate of Jtine E. Rodes, deceased, r. The United States.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- 
nished to the military forces of the United States for their use duriiig the late war for 
the suppression of the rebellion, the court on a preliminary inquiry linds that Jane E. 
Rodes, deceased, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores or from 
whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the 
United States throughout the said war. 

Bv THE Court. 

Filed May 25, 1903. 

[In the Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 5518. John B. Atchison and Clifton R. Atchison, heirs 
of Mrs. Jane Elizabeth Rodes, deceased, r. The United States.] 

STATEMENT. 

This claim, which was referred to the court on August 1. 1888, by the Committee 
on ^A'ar Claims of the House of Representatives, under the provisions of the act of Con- 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 315' 

gress approved March 3, 1883, entitled "An act to afford assistance and relief to Con- 
gress and the Executive Departments in the investigation of claims and demands 
against the Government," was brought to a hearing by the court on the 26th day of 
April, 1905, with respect to the merits of the same, the loyalty of the original claimant 
having been found by the court on the 25th day of May, 1903. At such hearing on the 
merits Benjamin Carter, esq. , appeared as attorney for the claimants, and the Attorney- 
General, by Charles F. Kincheloe, his assistant, appeared for the defense and protec- 
tion of the United States. 

The present claimants prosecute the claim as residuary legatees under the will of 
Clifton Kodes, who was the son and sole heir of Mrs. Jane Elizabeth Rodes. They 
allege in their petition that there were taken from said Mrs. Rodes by the United 
States military forces and applied to proper uses of the Quartermaster's Department 
of the Army, in the autumn and winter of 1864, mules, horses, wagons, and a double 
set of harness, cord wood, and timbers for the construction of bridges and trestles, 
all the property of said Mrs. Rodes, which at that time were of the aggregate value 
of $3,360, and that nothing has ever been paid for or on account of such property. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OP FACT. 

I. The claimants, John B. Atchison and Clifton R. Atchison, are residuary legatees 
under the will of Clifton Rodes, deceased, who was the sole heir of Mrs. Jane Eliza- 
beth Rodes, deceased. Said Mrs. Rodes resided during the war of the rebellion on a 
farm belonging to her in Giles County, Tenn. She was a widow at that time and never 
remarried. Said Clifton Rodes was her only child. The estate of said Clifton Rodes 
has heretofore been fully administered. 

II. There was taken from the farm of the decedent in Giles County, State of Tennes- 
see, by the military forces of the United States during the war of the rebellion, by 
proper authority, for the use of the Army, property of the kind and character described 
in the petition, which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of two thousand 
one hundred and forty dollars ($2,140). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

By the Court. 
Filed May 1, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 9th day of June, 1906. 

TsBAL.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims, 

LAURA E. ROULSTON, ADMINISTRATRIX. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 5114. James W. Roulston v. The United States.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- 
nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for 
the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that James 
W. Roulston, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from 
whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the 
United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed May 15, 1903. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 5114. Laura E. Roulston, administratrix of James W. Roulston 
deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken 
by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their use during the late 
war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Committee 
on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 10th day of July, 1888. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 15th day of May, 1893, found that the 
person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were 
alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- 
out said war. 



316 AliLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 18th day of December, 1906. 

George A. and William B. King, esqrs., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared 
for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes the following allegations: 

That said claimant's decedent was, during the civil war, a resident of the State of 
Tennessee, and did not give any aid or comfort to the said rebellion, but was through- 
out that war loyal to the Government of the United States. 

That the following property belonging to claimant's decedent was taken from him 
in the county of Marion, State of Tennessee, by and for the. use of the United States 
Army, to wit:j 

Taken by the command of Gen. A. McDowell Cook, August 15, 1862: 

1,800 pounds of fresh pork $144. 00 

200 pounds of fresh pork 12. 00 

144 bushels of corn 108. 00 

Taken by the command of General Negley, June 4, 1862: 

1 sorrel horse : 100. 00 

Total 364. 00 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the 
United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took from claimant's 
decedent in Marion County, State of Tennessee, property as above described, which 
at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of two hundred and 
seventy-two dollars (1272). • 

II. A claim for said property was presented to the Commissioners of Claims and by 
them rejected because the claimant testified that he had taken the benefit of the bank- 
rupt law, and that though they did not believe the items of this claim were included 
in his list of assets, it made no difference, for he was divested of all title in the claim, 
whether he did or not. 

The claim was presented to the Fiftieth Congress and by that Congress referred to 
the court as aforesaid. 

By the Court. 
Filed December 24, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 2d day of January, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

C. H. CORN, ADMINISTRATOR. 

tCourt of Claims. Congressional, No. 1.559. C. H. Corn, administrator of estates of W. W. Sharp, 
deceased, and John Chitwood, deceased, v. The United States.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- 
nished to the military forces of the United States for then- use during the late war for 
the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that W. W. 
Sharp and John Chitwood, deceased, and Susan Sharp, Leodicea Sharp, Robert 
Sharp, Margaret Sharp, George Sharp, Sarah Sharp, and William Sharp, the persons 
alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged 
to have been taken, were loyal to the Government of the United States throughout 
said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed March 2] , 1904. 

t Court of Claims. Congressional, No. l.^SO. C. H. Corn, administrator cum testamento annexo, of 
the estate of W. \V. Sharp, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the 



ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 317 

Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 4th day of March, 
1887. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 21st day of March, 1904, found that the 
person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were 
alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- 
out said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 14th day of January, 1907. 

Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by A. C. Camp- 
bell, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection 
of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant, in his petition, makes the following allegations: 

That he is a citizen of the United States residing in Franklin County, Tenn.; that 
he is the administrator of the estate of W. W. Sharp, deceased; that said decedent 
resided during the late civil war in said county and State; that at different times dur- 
ing said period the United States military forces, by proper authority, took from said 
decedent and his estate quartermaster stores and commissary supplies for the use of 
the United States Array, of the kinds and values below stated, to wit: ^ — ^ 

360 cords of wood, at |4 per cord |1, 440 

40 fat sheep 140 

2 cattle, at $30 each 60 

100 bushels of potatoes, at |1 per bushel 100 

300 pounds of pork, at 10 cents per pound 30 

1 fine young stallion 150 

1 sorrel mare 150 

1 sorrel mule 150 

Lumber and timber taken from 2-story dwelling, kitchen, smokehouse, and 

stable ' 400 

Total 2, 620 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OP PACT. 

I. During the late war for the suppression of the rebellion the United States military 
forces, under proper authority, took from claimant's decedent, for use of the Army, 
quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the kinds mentioned in the petition, 
which at the time and place of taking were reasonably worth the sum of one thousand 
"two hundred and forty-eight dollars ($1,248), for which no payment appears to have 
been made. 

By the Court. 

Filed January 21, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 29th day of January, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

WILLIAM M. MOSS, ADMINISTRATOR OF JOHN SMITH. 
[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11193. Estate of Jolm Smith v. The United States.] 

This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- 
nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for 
the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that John 
Smith, deceased, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from 
whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the 
United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed April 9, 1906. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11193. William M. Moss, administrator cf John Smith, deceased, 

V. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

This is a claim for stores and supplies alleged to have been taken by or furnished 
to the military forces of the United States during the late civil war. 



318 AT.T.OWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

On February 20, 1903, the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representa- 
tives referred to this court, under the provisions of the act of March 3, 1887, known as 
the Tucker Act, the following bill: 

"[II. R. llltS, Fifty-seventh Congress, first session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of John Smith. 

' ' Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay John Smith, of Jackson, Tennessee, out of any money in 
the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of three thousand four hundred 
and fifty dollars, being for stores and supplies alleged to have been furnished United 
States troops during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion." 

The claimant appeared and filed his petition in this court January 13, 1904, in 
which he makes the following allegations: 

That he is the administrator of the estate of John Smith, deceased, who resided in 
Madison County, State of Tennessee, during the late civil war; that at different times 
-during the period of said war there was taken from his decedent by the United States 
military forces, by proper authority, for the use of the army, stores and supplies of the 
value of S3, 450, as follows: 

2,000 pounds manufactured tobacco, at 50 cents per pound $1, 000 

Stock of goods, consisting of hats, shoes, clothing, groceries, provisions, etc., 

valued at 2, 000 

(Taken about June, 1863. ) 

1 mare 200 

1 mare 150 

1 pony 100 

Total 3, 450 

On April 9, 1906, on a preliminary hearing, the court found that John Smith, de- 
ceased, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the civil war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on merits on February 5, 1907. 

Watson E. Coleman, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by W. M. Ashfoi'd, his assistant and under his direction, appeai'ed for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OP FACT. 

I. Claimant's decedent, John Smith, was loyal to the Government of the United 
States throughout the late war for the suppression of the rebellion. 

II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper authority 
for the use of the army, took from claimant's decedent, in Madison County, Tenn., 
property of the kind and character above described, which at the time and place of 
taking was reasonably worth the sum of sixteen hundred dollars (|1,600), no part of 
which appears to have been paid. 

III. The claim herein was never presented to any department of the government 
prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by the House of Repre- 
sentatives, as hereinbefore mentioned, and no reason is given therefor. 

By the Court. 
Filed April 22, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 13th day of December, A. D. 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cla-Jc Court of Claims. 

JOHN M. SPEED, HEIR OF WARREN F. SPEED, DECEASED. 

{Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11258. Estate of Warren F. Speed, deceased, v. The United 

States.] 

This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- 
nished to the militaiy forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the 
suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Wan'en F. 
Speed, deceased, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 319 

whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the 
United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 
Filed April 10, 1905. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11258. John M. Speed, heir at law of Warren F. Speed, 
deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken 
by or furnished to the militaiy forces of the United States for their use during the late 
war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Committee 
on War .Claims, House of Representatives, on the 12th day of January, 1904. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 10th day of April, 1905, found that the 
person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged 
to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said 
war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 18th day of January, 1906, C. A. 
and F. W. Brandenburg, esqs., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
F. W. Collins, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

That claimant was a resident of Maury County, State of Tennessee, and was the 
owner and possessor of certain horses and mules, which in the fall of 1863 were seized 
and appropriated to the use of the military forces of the United States then stationed 
and operating in said locality according to the following bill of items: 

Two mules, at |150 each |300 

One horse 150 

Total 450 

The court, upon the evidence and after the consideration of the briefs and the argu- 
ments of counsel for the respective parties, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF PACT. 

There was taken from the claimant's decedent, in Maury County , State of Tennessee, 
during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United 
States, for the use of the Army, property of the kind above described, which at the time 
and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of three hundred and ten dollars 
($310), for which no payment appears to have been made. 

By THE Court. 

Filed January 29, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 17th day of March, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph,' 

Assistant Clei^k Court of Claims. 

WILLIAM STONE, HEIR OF MARK STONE, DECEASED. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11260. Estate of Mark Stone, deceased, v. The United States.] 

This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- 
nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for 
the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Mark 
Stone, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom 
the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United 
States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed January 23, 1905. 

[Com-t of Claims. Congressional case No. 11260. William Stone, heir of Mark Stone, v. The United 

States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during 



320 AULiOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

the late war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 12th clay of January, 
1904. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 23d day of January, 1905, found that the 
person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were 
alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- 
out said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 2d day of ]\Iay, 1905. 

Clarence A. Brandenburg, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attomey-General, 
by John Q. Thompson, esq., his assistant and under his diiection, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

That he is the heir at law of Mark Stone, who resided during the war of the rebellion 
in Maury County, Tenn. ; that during said war United States military forces, by proper 
authority, for the use of the Ai-my, took from claimant's decedent one horse of the 
value of $285. Claim was disallowed by the Quartermaster-General because he was 
not convinced that the property was actually taken or received for the use of and used 
by the United States Army. 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on l)oth sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT, 

There was taken from the claimant's decedent in Maury County, State of Ten- 
nessee, during the war of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States, 
by proper authority, for the use of the Army, property as above described, which 
at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of one hundred and ten 
dollars ($110). 

It does not appear that any payment has been made for any part thereof. 

By the Court. 

Filed May 15, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 22d day of December, 1905. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

CLARISSA H. TIPTON, ADMINISTRATRIX. 
[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10960. Isaac Tipton, deceased, v. The United States.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- 
nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war 
for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquuy, finds that 
Isaac Tipton, deceased, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, 
or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government 
of the United States throughout said war. :3^ 

By the Court. 

Filed January 11, 1904. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional. No. 10960. Clarissa H Tipton, administratix Isaac Tipton, 
deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of tlie rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 3d day of Febru- 
ary, 1903. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 11th day of January, 1904, foimd that 
the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were 
alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States tlu'ough- 
out said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 17th day of October, 1906. 

Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimant, and Hon. J. A. Van Orsdel, Assistant 
Attorney-General, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the 
United States. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 321 

The claimant in her petition makes the following allegations: 
That she is the duly appointed, qualified, and acting administratrix of the estate 
of Isaac Tipton, deceased, late of Knox County, Tenn.; that during the late civil war 
said decedent resided in said county and State; that during said war the United 
States military forces, under proper authority, took from said decedent and converted 
to the use of the United States Army commissary supplies of the kind and value below 
stated, to wit: 

11 hogs, 1,375 pounds |137. 50 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDING OP FACTS. 

There was taken from the claimant's decedent, in Knox County, State of Tennessee, 
during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United 
States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, property of the kind and char- 
acter above described, which was reasonably worth at the time and place of taking 
the sum of eighty-two dollars (|82), for which no payment appears to have been made. 

By the Court. 
Filed October 22, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 1st day of December, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

GEORGE TODD. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 6776. George Todd v. The United States.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- 
nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the 
suppression of the rebellion, the couit, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that George 
Todd, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the 
same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States 
throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed February 11, 1907. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 6776. George Todd v. The United States.] 
STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores, alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims, House of Representatives, on the 14th day of February, 
1889. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 11th day of February, 1907, found that 
the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were 
alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- 
out said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 12th day of March, 1907. 

C. A. and F. W. Brandenburg, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General 
by M. A. Coles, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

That during the said war he was a resident of Maury County, State of Tennessee, 
and was the owner and possessor in said county and State of certain quartermaster 
stores and commissary supplies, which in the fall of 1864 were seized and appropriated 
to the use of the military forces of the United States then stationed and operating in 
said locality, according to the following bill of items: 

Two horses, at 1150 each , ; $300 

H. Rep. 543, 60-1- ^21 



322 AULOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 

The coui't, upon the evidence and after the consideration of briefs and after hearing 
the arguments of the respective counsel, makes the following 

FINDING OF FACT. 

There were taken from the claimant in Maury County, State of Tennessee, during the 
war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States, by 
proper authority, for the use of the Army, horses as set forth in the petition, which at 
the time and place of taking were reasonably worth the sum of one hundred and ten 
dollars ($110). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

By the Court. 

Filed April 1, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 12th day of December, A. D. 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

TRUSTEES OF WASHINGTON COLLEGE, WASHINGTON, TENN. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional No. 11176. Trustees of Washington College, of Washington College, 

Tenn., v. The United States.] 

statement of case. 

The following bill was referred to the court February 20, 1903, by resolution of the 
House of Representatives, under an act of Congress, approved March 3, 1887, known 
as the Tucker Act: 

"A BILL For the relief of the Trustees of Washington College, in the State of Tennessee. 

"Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay to the trustees of Washington College, in the State of Ten- 
nessee, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of ten 
thousand dollars, for use of and injury to their buildings and contents by the Federal 
Army during the war of the rebellion." 

The trustees of Washington College, in the State of Tennessee, appeared and filed 
their petition in this court March 6, 1905, in which they make the following allegations: 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and in the fall of 1863, 
the military forces of the United States, under command of General Burnside, took 
possession of the grounds, buildings, and contents of Washington College, situated at 
Washington College, in the State of Tennessee, and used the same for militaiy pur- 
poses. 

That during said occupation the said buildings were badly damaged and the con- 
tents thereof were all removed and destroyed and the fence inclosing the said building 
were appropriated to the use of the Army. 

That the reasonable rental value of said buildings during the period it was so used 
and occupied, including the damages incident to such occupation and the voluntary 
destruction and use of the property belonging to the said college, was the sum of 
$10,000, for which no payment has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 19th day of Feb- 
ruary, 190G. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimant^, and the Attorney- 
General, by George H. Walker, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared 
for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

findings op fact. 

I. It appears from the evidence that Washington College, of Tennessee, as a col- 
lege, was loyal to the Government of the United States tlu'oughout the war for the- 
suppression of the rnl)ollion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the 
United States, liy proper authority, took possession of the college buildings and 
grounds of Washington College, situated at Washington College, State of Tennessee, 
and used and occupied the same for military purposes. The reasonable rental value 



ALLOWANCE OF CBETAIN CLAIMS. 323 

of said buildings and grounds during the period of such occupancy, including repairs 
necessary to restore the property to the condition in which it was when the military 
forces took possession of the same, was the sum of four thousand two hundred dollars 
($4,200), for which no payment appears to have been made. 

III. The claim was not presented to any officer or Department of the Government 
prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court as aforesaid. 

By the Court. 
Filed March 12, 1906. ' 

A true copy. 

Test this 16th day of March, 1906. ^ 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

TRUSTEES OF FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH, AT JEFFERSON CITY, TENN. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11268. Trustees of the First Baptist Church, at JeSerson 
City, Tenn., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken 
by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late 
war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted to the court by the Committee 
on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 12th day of January, 1904. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 9th day of January, 1905, found that the 
church alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged, 
to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said 
war. 

. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 5th day of January, 1905, G. W. 
Hott, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by George M. Ander- 
son, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection 
of the interests of the United States. 

The claimants in their petition make the following allegations: 

That during the late war of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by 
proper authority, took possession of the church building of the First Baptist Church, of 
Jefferson City, Tenn., and removed therefrom a lot of material, consisting of lumber, 
furniture, fixtures, etc., and appropriated the same to tlie use of the Army. That said 
material was taken in the fall and winter of 1863-64 by the following regiments of 
infantry. One hundred and eleventh and One hundred and eighteenth Ohio, Twenty- 
fifth Michigan, Thirteenth Kentucky, Eightieth Indiana, and Third and Sixth 
Tennessee. 

That the cost to restore the building to the same condition in which it was before 
taken possession of by the said troops was the sum of $925, for which no payment has 
been made. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United 
States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, in the fall and winter of 1863-64, 
took and destroyed the church building belonging to the First Baptist Chm-ch, of 
Jefferson City, Tenn., which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of nine 
hundred and fifteen dollars ($915). 

By THE Court. 

Filed January 9, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 12th day of January, 1905. 

[seal.] Archibald Hopkins, 

Chief Clerk. 



324 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

% 

TRUSTEES OF CUMBERLAND PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, PULASKI, 

TENN. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12199. Trustees of the Cumberland Presbvterian Church, of 
Pulaski, Tenn., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court March 31, 1906, by resolution of the 
House of Representatives under act of Congress, approved ]\Iarch 3, 1887, known as 
the Tucker Act : 

"A BttLL For the relief of the trustees of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, of Pulaski, Tennessee. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not 
otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of th« Cumberland Presbyterian Church, of 
Pulaski, Tennessee, the sum of one thousand and fifteen dollars, in full compensation 
for the use, occupation, and damage to said church by the military forces of the United 
States diiring the late war." 

The trustees of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, of Pulaski, Tenn., appeared 
and filed their petition in this court September 14, 1906, in which they make the 
following allegations: 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about Novem- 
ber, 1863, the military forces of the United States, under command of Gen. G. M. 
Dodge, took possession of the chm'ch building of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, 
at Pulaski, Tenn., and used and occupied the same for military purpose until the 
summer of 1864; that thereafter, and on or about December, 1864, the said military 
forces, by proper authority, again took possession of said building and used and occu- 
pied the same until the summer of 1865. 

That the reasonable rental value of said building during the period it was so occu- 
pied, including the repaii's necessary to restore the building to the condition in 
which it was at the time the said military forces took possession, was the sum of $2,500, 
for which no payment has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 5th day of Feb- 
ruary, 1907. 

G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by 
Malcolm A. Coles, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The Cumberland Presbyterian Church, of Pulaski, Tenn., as a church, was loyal 
to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. 

II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, 
took possession of the building described in the petition in about November, 1863, 
and used the same for military purposes until the summer of 1864. Such use and 
occupation, together with the damages to said building in excess of the ordinary wear 
and tear, was reasonably worth the sum of seven hundred dollars ($700.00), no part 
of which appears to have been paid. 

III. The claim herein was never presented to any department of the Government 
prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court under act of March 3, 
1887, as hereinbefore mentioned, and no reason is given why such was not done. 

By the Court. 
Filed February 11, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 22d day of February, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 325 

TRUSTEES OF THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH SOUTH, OF 

TRIUNE, TENN. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12193. Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of 
Triune, Tenn., v. The United States,] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court March 31, 1906, by resolution of the 
House of Representatives under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the 
Tucker Act: 

"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Triune, Wjlliam- 

son County, Tennessee. 

"Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of Amer - 
ica in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby,' 
authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appro- 
priated, to the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, at Triune, William- 
son County, Tennessee, the sum of six thousand dollars, inpayment and satisfaction for 
the use and occupation of and damage done to said chui'ch and for the material taken 
and used by the Federal forces during th3 late ci-\dl war." 

The trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Triune, Tenn., appeared 
and filed their petition in this court April 28, 1906, in which they make the following 
allegations: 

That dming the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about the 
fall of 1863, the military forces of the United States under command of General Stead- 
man took possession of the church building of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, 
at Triune, Williamson County. Tenn., and removed the said building, appropriating 
the material therein to the use of the Army in building winter quarters and for various 
other purposes. 

That said building was constructed of brick, being two stories high and about 40 
by 60 feet, furnished with the usual and necessary church furniture, and was reason- 
ably worth at the time of its removal as aforesaid the sum of $6,000. no part of which 
has ever been paid. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 30th day of January, 
1907. 

G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by 
Malcolm A. Coles, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF PACT. 

I. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion, the Methodist Episcopal 
Church South, of Triune, Williamson Coimty, Tenn., as a church, was loyal to the 
Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. 

II. During the late civil war the military forces of the United States, by proper ' 
authority, took possession of the church building of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
South, of Triune, Williamson County, Tenn., Whilst the said military forces of 
the United States under command of General Steadman, were camped around the 
premises the said church building was destroyed by fii'e, but whether by accident 
or design and for what purpose does not appear. After the destruction of the property 
by fibre, as aforesaid, the bricks and rocks which had been used in the construction 
of the church building were appropriated to the use of the military forces of the United 
States. The said building at the time of its destruction was reasonably worth the 
sum of thirty-eight hundred dollars ($3,800), no part of which appears to have been 
paid. 

III. The claim herein was never presented to any department of the Government 
until its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolution of the 
United States Senate under the act of March 3, 1887, as aforesaid; nor is any evidence 
offered to show why the claim was not heretofore presented to some department of 
the Government. 

By THE Court. 
Filed February 4, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 9th day of February, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 



326 AULOWANOE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. . 

ST. PETER'S PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH, COLUMBIA, TENN. 

[Court of Claims. Term 1906 and 1907. Congressional, No. 12197. Rector, wardens, and vestry of 
the St. Peter's Protestant Episcopal Church of Columbia, Term., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. ■ 

The following bill was referred to this court by a resolution of the House of Rep- 
resentatives under the provisions of section 14 of the act of March 3, 1887: 

"A BILL For the relief of the vestry of Saint Peter's Protestant Episcopal Church of Columhia, 

Tennessee. 

"Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assevihled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropri- 
ated, to the vestry of the Saint Peter's Protestant Episcopal Church of Columbia, Ten- 
nessee, the sum of five thousand dollars, in payment for the use and occupation and 
damages done to the church' building while used by the Federal forces from June, 
eighteen hundred and sixty-three, to November, eighteen hundred and sixty-four." 

The claimants in their amended petition make'the following allegations: 

That the said church is an ecclesiastical corporation of the State of Tennessee, and 
that during the civil war the said church as such did not give any aid or comfort to 
the said rebellion, but was throughout that war loyal to the Government of the United 
States. 

That in December, 1863, the said St. Peter's Protestant Episcopal Clnu-ch, in the 
city of Columbia, State of Tennessee, was closed by military order, and that from 
July 1, 1862, to May 31, 1865, was constantly occupied by United States troops belong- 
ing to Ohio, Illinois, and Indiana regiments (except during brief stay of General 
Hood's army in December. 1864) as a hospital and barracks, and that while so occu- 
pied sustained considerable damage, to wit, the pews and seats in being removed 
were greatly damaged and many of them destroyed; the pulpit, organ, interior fittings, 
window shutters and sash, etc., were all destroyed, and 1,200 feet of dressed plank 
stored in the church was taken and used by the troops for hospital purposes. That 
shortly after the troops had vacated, the Iniilding was rebuilt by the parish and used 
as a place of worship. 

That said edifice and interior fittings were reasonably worth the sum of $3, 750 

Use and occupation of church bv troops from Julv 1, 1862, to Maj 31, 1865. . . 2, 625 
1,200 feet of dressed plank *. '. 30 

Total 6, 405 

That a claim for this damage, and use and occupation to said church edifice was 
presented to the quartermaster, United States Army, but was not allowed. 

That the said claim has been presented to the Fifty-ninth Congress, and was by 
resolution No. 249 of the House of Representatives of the said Fifty-ninth Congress, 
first session, on the 6th day of April, 1906, referred to this court for a finding of the 
facts, in accordance with the provisions of the act of March 3, 1887, entitled "An act 
to provide for the bringing of suits against the Government of the United States." 

That no action other than aforesaid has been had on this claim in Congress or any 
of the Departments; that the claimant is the sole owner of this claim and the only 
person interested therein; that no assignment or transfer of this claim or any part 
thereof or interest therein has been made; that the claimant is justlv entitled to the 
amount herein claimed from the United States, after allowing all just credits and 
offsets; that your petitioners believe the facts as stated in this petition to be true, 
and pray a finding of the facts in accordance with the aforesaid act. 

The case was lirought to a h<>aring on the 23d day of January, 1907. 

George A. and \Villiam B. King appeared for the claimant, and J. A. Van Orsdel, 
esq., Assistant Attorney-General, by W. H. Lamar, esq., his assistant and under his 
direction, appeared fur the defense and protection of the interests of the United 
States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering tlie l)riefs and argument of 
counsel on lioth sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The St. Peter's Protestant Episcopal Church of Columbia, Tenn.. as a church, 
was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war for the sup- 
pression of the rebellion. 



AXiIiOWANCE OF CESTAIN CLAIMS. 327 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the 
United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church property belonging 
to the St. Peter's Protestant Episcopal Church of Columbia, Tenn., and used the same 
at various times from July 1, 1862, until May 31, 1865, as a hospital and for barracks, 
and damaged the same. Such use and occupation, together with the damages to 
the property in excess of the ordinary wear and tear, was then and there reasonably 
worth the sum of thirty-one hundred and twenty dollars (|3,120), no part of which 
appears to have been paid. 

III. The foregoing claim was never presented to any department of the Govern- 
ment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolution of 
the House of Representatives as hereinbefore stated, and no reason is given for not so 
presenting the same. 

By the Court. 

Filed January 28, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 30th day of January, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims.- 

TEXAS. 

ROBERT E. WILLIAMS AND OTHER HEIRS OF ROBERT M. WILLIAMS. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12189. Robert E. Williams, Jolm T. Williams, Mary F. 
Williams, George M. Williams, and Ida Williams-Eddy, heirs of the estate of Rooert M. Williams, 
deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

This is a claim for property alleged to have been taken by the military forces of the 
United States for the use of the Army. The following bill was referred to the court by 
the House of Representatives, March 31, 1906, under the act of Congress approved 
March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act: 

'•■ [H. R. 4235, Fifty-eighth Congress, first session.] 
" A BILL For the relief of the estate of Robert M. Williams, deceased. 

"Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay to the estate of Robert M. Williams, deceased, the sum of two 
thousand one hundred and seventy-five dollars for property taken by the Union Arniy 
in eighteen hundred and sixty-two, in Cooper County, Missouri, out of any money in 
the Treasury not otherwise apj)ropriated." 

The claimants, Robert E. Williams, John T. Williams, Mary Frances Williams, and 
George M. Williams, and Mrs. Ida Williams-Eddy, only surviving heirs, appeared and 
filed their petition herein, June 26, 1906, in which they make 1 he following allegations: 

That decedent was always a loyal citizen of the United States, and lived diuing the 
civil war in Cooper County, Mo. 

That in the year 1862 a cavalry troop of General Fremont's command, under charge 
of a lieutenant not known to claimants, came through that part of the country and took 
from decedent — 

2 wagons, at $100 each 1200 

2 large mules, at $200 each 400 

8 fine mares, at $200 each 600 

2 sets of harness, at $25 a set 50 

1 fine double-barrel shotgun - 75 

and later the State militia took the balance of the stock — 

3 head of horses, at $150 each 450 

300 bushels of corn, at $1 a bushel 300 

Total 2,175 

for which no compensation has ever been received, either by decedent or any party in 
interest. 

That the decedent died in 1875, in Dallas, Tex., intestate, and no administrator was 
appointed for his estate. Your petitioners did not know until recently of the passage 
of the Tucker Act, when they presented this claim in the Fifty-ninth Congress, first 
session. 



328 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

The case was brought to a hearing on January 6, 1908. Ellen Spencer Mussey ap- 
peared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General by Clark McKercher, his assistant, 
and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the 
United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the arguments and briefs of 
counsel on each side, makes the following 

FINDING OF TACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that Robert M. Williams, claimants' decedent, was 
loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. 

II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, 
for the use of the Army, took from claimants' decedent in Cooper County, Mo. , property 
of the kind and character described in the petition, which at the time and place of 
taking was reasonably worth the sum of one thousand one hundred and forty dollars, 
no part of Avhih appears to have peen paid. 

III. The claim herein was never presented to any Department of the Government 
prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolution of the 
United States House of Representatives as hereinbefore mentioned, and no reason is 
given why the bar of any statute of limitation should be removed or which shall be 
claimed to excuse the claimants for not having resorted to any established legal remedy. 

By the Court. 
Filed January 13, 1908. 

A true copy. 

Test this 17th day of January, A. D. 1908. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

VERMONT. 

HENRIETTA V. DALE. 

Court of Claims. Congressional, No .12169-44. Henrietta V. Dale, widow nf John J. Dale, deceased. 

V. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the coiut by the Committee 
on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 27th day of March, 1906. The 
case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 20th day of January, 1908. 

C. D. Pennebaker, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
G. M. Anderson, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

1. That she is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of Windham, 
in the State of Vermont, and is the widow of John J. Dale, deceased. 

2. That said John J. Dale being the sergeant of Comjiany F, Seventeenth Regiment 
Vermont Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor 
of the State of Vermont as second lieutenant thereof on March 11, 1865; and that from 
and after said date tlie said John J. Dale assumed and performed all the duties of his 
said grade until May 1, 1865, when he was mustered in as first lieutenant; said regi- 
ment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed bj' law and regulation, 
and for this reason, and no other, said John J. Dale was refused muster and recognition 
in the grade of second lieutenant during said period. 

3. That during said period the said John J. Dale was allowed and paid only the pay 
and allowances of a sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance of the 
duties of second lieutenant. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments, and upon other 
evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel, the court makes thef olio wing 

FINDINGS OF PACT. 

1. Henrietta V. Dale, the claimant of this case, is a citizen of the United States and 
resident of the county of Windham, in the State of Vermont. 

2. On March 11, 1865, John J. Dale was sergeant of Company F, Seventeenth Regi- 
ment Vermont Vohmteer Infantry. On that date and ujitil he was mustered into the 
service, to wit, on May 1, 1865, the same was and continued to be below the mini- 
mum number prescribed by General Orders, No. 182, of the War Department, of June 



AliLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 329 

20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 
(12 Stat. L.,p. 734). 

The second lieutenant of said Company F, Seventeenth Regiment Vermont Volun- 
teer Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of 
second lieutenant devolved upon said John J. Dale, who then and thereafter assumed 
and performed all the duties of second lieutenant of said Company F, Seventeenth 
Regiment Vermont Volunteer Infantry. 

The governor of the State of Vermont also issued to said John J. Dale a commission 
as second lieutenant. Company F, Seventeenth Regiment Vermont Volunteer Infantry. 

3. On the said March 11, 1865, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to 
muster the said John J. Dale as second lieutenant of said Company F, Seventeenth 
Regiment Vermont Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its 
minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of second 
lieutenant until he was mustered into the service as first lieutenant May 1, 1865. 

4. If the said John J. Dale should be deemed second lieutenant of Company F, 
Seventeenth Regiment Vermont Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay of that 
grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a sergeant, which he has 
received, and that of a second lieutenant, to which he would have been entitled had 
he been mustered from the period from March 11, 1865, to April 30, 1865, would amount 
to one hundred and twenty-four dollars and six cents (1124.06), as reported by the 
Auditor for the War Department. 

By the Court. 
Filed January 20, 1908. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 20th day of January, 1908. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

VIRGINIA. 

FRANCIS M. BRABHAM. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10599. Francis M. Brabham v. The United States.] 

This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- 
nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war 
for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that 
Francis M. Brabham, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, 
or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken , was loyal to the Government 
of the United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed May 15, 1905. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10599. Francis M. Brabham v. The United States.] 
STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken 
by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the 
late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Com- 
mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of March, 1902. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 15th day of May, 1905, found that the 
person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were 
alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- 
out said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 21st day of November, 1905. 

Moyers & Consaul, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
E. C. Brandenburg, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

That he is a citizen of the United States, now residing in the county of Montgomery, 
Sta,te of Maryland; that during the late civil war he was a citizen of the United States, 
residing in the county of Loudoun, State of Virginia; that during said war the United 
States military forces, under proper authority, took from petitioner and converted to 
the use of the United States army quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the 
kinds and values below stated, to wit: 

1 steer |25. 00 

4 fine horses at $155 each 620. 00 

Total 645. 00 



330 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel upon both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. There was taken from the claimant, in Loudoun County, State of Virginia, during 
the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States, 
for the use of the Army, property of the kind and character above described, which 
was then and there reasonably worth the sum of five hundred dollars (|500), for which 
no payment appears to have been made. 

By the Court. 

Filed December 4, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 12th day of April, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claivis. 

SOLOMON P. BROCKWAY. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-6. Solomon P. Brockway v. The United States.] 
STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Committee 
on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The 
case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 1st day of April, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant and the Attorney-General, 
by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Augusta, in 
the State of Virginia. 

2. That he, being major Ninth Regiment Michigan Volunteer Cavalry, was duly 
appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State of Michigan as lieutenant- 
colonel thereof on June 27, 1865; and that from and after said date he assumed and 
performed all the duties of his said grade until August 9,. 1865, when he was mustered 
out as major; said regiment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed 
by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, he was refused muster and 
recognition in the grade of lieutenant-colonel during said period. 

3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances of a 
major, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of lieutenant- 
colonel. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other 
evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following 

FINDINGS OP FACT. 

1. Solomon P. Brockway, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States 
and resident in the county of Augusta, in the State of Virginia. 

2. On June 27, 1865, the said Solomon P. Brockway was major Ninth Regiment 
Michigan Volunteer Cavalry. On that date and until he was mustered out of service, 
to wit, on August 9, 1865, the same was and continued to be below the minimum num- 
ber prescribed by General Orders, No. 182, of the Wai- Department of June 20, 1863, 
carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. 
L., 734). 

The lieutenant-colonel of said Ninth Regiment Michigan Volunteer Cavalry was 
promoted colonel June 27, 1865, vice Acker, resigned June 27, 1865. and the duties of 
lieutenant-colonel devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed 
and performed all the duties of lieutenant-colonel of said Ninth Regiment Michigan 
Volunteer Cavalry until August 9, 1865. 

The governor of tlie State of Micliigan also issued to this claimanl a commission as 
lieutenant-colonel Ninth Regiment Michigan Volunteer Cavalry. 

3. On the said June 27, 18()5, th(> mustering officer then and thereafter refused to 
muster this claimant as lieutenant-colonel of said Ninth Regiment Micliigan Volunteer 
Cavalry solely because his command was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, 
although he continued to perform the duties of lieutenant-colonel until he was mus- 
tered out of the service as major August 9, 1865. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 331 

4. If the said Solomon P. Brockway should be deemed lieutenant-colonel Ninth 
Regiment Michigan Volunteer Cavalry and entitled to the pay of that grade, the differ- 
ence between his pay and allowances as a major, which he has received, and that of a 
lieutenant-colonel, to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered for 
the period from June 27, 1865, to August 9, 1865, would amount to $92.64 (ninety-two 
dollars and sixty-four cents), as reported by the Auditor for the War Department. 

By the Court. 

Filed April 1, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 2d day of April, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

FRANCIS F. CURTIS. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 8440. Francis F. Curtis v. The United States.] 

This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- 
nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war 
for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that 
Francis F. Curtis, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or 
from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of 
the United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 
Filed November 13, 1905. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 8440. Francis F. Curtis v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 2d day of March, 
1891. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 13th day of November, 1905, found that 
the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they 
were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States 
throughout said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 30th day of January, 1907. 

Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by F. DeC. 
Faust, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and pro-' 
taction of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

That he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Fauquier, 
State of Virginia; that during the early portion of the late civil war he resided in said 
county and State, but in 1863 moved to the State of Ohio, where he resided during 
the remainder of said war; that during said war the United States military forces, 
under proper authority, took from petitioner for use of the United States Army, quar- 
termaster stores and commissary supplies of the kinds and values below stated, to- wit: 

Taken from farm of petitioner, near Warrenton, Fauquier County, by troops 
under command of General Wilcox, November 8, 1862: 

150 bushels of corn, at 60 cents per bushel $90. 00 

Taken, August, 1863, by E. M. Tilley, captain and assistant quartermaster: 

175 bushels corn, at 80 cents per bushel 140. 00 

600 bushels corn, at 60 cents per bushel 360. 00 

26 sheep, at $4 each 104. 00 

200 bushels of oats, at 50 cents per bushel 100. 00 

40 bushels of potatoes, at |1 per bushel 40. 00 

1 roan horse 150. 00 

2 sets of harness, at $25 a set 50. 00 

150 bushels of wheat, at $1.50 per bushel 225. 00 

1,000 pounds of bacon, at 16f cents per pound 166. 66 

4 calves, at $8 each 32. 00 

8,000 feet new lumber, at $20 per M 160. 00 

4 barrels of flour, at $10 per barrel 40. 00 

1 wheelbarrow 5. 00 

Total 1, 627. 66 



332 AULiOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel upon both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

During the late civil war the United States military forces, under proper authority, 
took from claimant, in Fauquier County, Va., for use of the Army, quartermaster 
stores and commissary supplies of the kinds mentioned in the j)etition, which, at the 
time and place of taking, were reasonably worth the sum of six hundred and three 
dollars and seventy-five cents ($603.75). 

No payment appears to have been made for said property or any part thereof. 

By the Court. 

Filed February 4, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 8th day of February, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

MARGARET M. DONNELLY, WIDOW OF EDWARD W. DONNELLY. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, 'Nro. 10555. Estate of Edward W. Donnelly, deceased, v. The United 

States.] 

This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- 
nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war 
for the suppression of the rebellion, the com-t, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that 
Edward W. Donnelly, deceased, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies 
or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the 
Government of the United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

FUed May 25, 1903. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 10555. Margaret M. Donnelly, widow of Edward W, 
Donnelly, deceased, v. The United States.] 

statement op case. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for theii' use dur- 
ing the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the comt 
by the Committee on War Claims on the 1st day of April, 1902. 

On a preliminary inquiry the c;ourt, on the 25th day of May, 1903, found that the 
person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were 
alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the LTnited States 
throughout said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 9th day of December, 1907. 

George A. and William B. King, esqs., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by Malcolm A. Coles, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared 
for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes the following allegations: 

The claimant appeared in this court and filed her petition September 9, 1902, in 
which it is substantially averred that: 

The following propertj' belonging to Edward W. Donnelly was taken from him by 
the United States Army, the date, place, and command being particularly stated 
below : 

In Fauquier County, in the State of Vii'ginia, on or about the years 1862 and 1864, 
by the United States troops — 

1 horse taken in the spring of 1862 by General Gregg's command $175 

1 horse taken by Colonel De Forest in 1864 175 

37 sheep, at $5 each, taken by reserve artillery in 1864 185 

2 hogs taken by United States troops in spring of 1864 30 

Chickens, turkeys, and other fowls taken at different times 80 

Products of garden for three years 300 

945 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 333 

That a claim for said property was presented to the Fifty-fifth and Fifty-sixth 
Congresses, the items of said claim being as heretofore stated. 

Said claim was not allowed by said tribunal, the ground for said action being that 
it was not considered that the claimant was a citizen of the United States. 

The claim has been presented to the Fifty-fifth and Fifty-sixth Congresses and was 
by the resoultion of the House of the said Fifty-sixth Congress referred to the Com- 
mittee on War Claims of the said House, by which committee it was on the 1st day 
of April, 1902, referred to this court for a finding of facts in accordance with section 
1 of an act approved March 3, 1883, entitled "An act to afford assistance and relief 
to Congress and the Executive Departments in the investigntion of claims and demands 
against the Government." 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDING OP FACT. 

During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United 
States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took from claimant's decedent, 
in Fauquier County, State of Virginia, property of the kind and character described 
in the petition, which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of three hun- 
dred and sixty dollars (?360). 

No payment appears to have been made for any part thereof. 

By the Court. 

Filed December 9, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 16th day of December, 1907. ^ 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

HEZEKIAH T. EMBREY, ADMINISTRATOR. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10603. Estate of Robert Embrey, deceased, v. The United 

States.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- 
nished to the military forces of the United States, for their use during the late war for 
the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Robert 
Embrey, deceased, the person alleged to" have furnished such supplies or stores, or 
from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of 
the United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed April 4, 1904. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 10603. Hezekiah T. Embrey, administrator of Robert 
Embrey, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken 
by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their use during the late 
war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Committee 
on War Claims, House of Representatives, on the 14th day of May, 1902. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 4th day of April, 1904, found that the 
person alleged to have fiirnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged 
to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said 
war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 5th day of December, 1904. 
William R. Andrews, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant >n his petition makes the following allegations: 

That he is the administrator of the estate of Robert Embrey, deceased, who resided 
in Fauquier County, State of Virginia, during the late war for the suppression of the 
rebellion; that during said period the military forces of the United States, under the 



334 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 



command of General Geary and others, for the use of the Army, took from his decedent 
property as follows: 

2 horses, at $125 each $250. 00 

250 bushels corn, at 65 cents 162. 50 

80 bushels of oats, at 40 cents 32. 00 

10 tons of hay, at $15 150. 00 

4 tons of straw, at $7.50 30. 00 

2 tons of fodder, at $7.50 15. 00 

40 sheep, at $3 120. 00 

5 cattle, 700 pounds each, at 4 cents 140. 00 

12 large hogs, 200 pounds each, at 6 cents 144. 00 

12 small hogs, 80 pounds each, at 6 cents 57. 60 

75 bushels of wheat, at $1.25 93. 75 

50 bushels of rye, at 80 cents 40. 00 

Total ' 1, 234. 85 

The com"t, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDING or FACT. 

There was taken fi'om the claimant's decedent in Fauquier County, State of Vir- 
ginia, during the war of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States, for 
their use, property as above described, which at the time and place of taking was 
reasonably worth the sum of eight hundred and twenty-six dollars ($826). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

By the Court. 

Filed December 12, 1904. 



A true copy. 

Test this 6th day of January, 1905. 

[seal.] 



John Randolj^h, 
Assistaiif Clerk Court of Claims, 



NOAH FOLTZ. 



[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 8622. Noah Foltz v. The United States.] 

This case l^eing a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken l)y or fur- 
nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war 
for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that 
Noah Foltz, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from 
whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the 
United States throughout said war. 

This finding is subject to the question of identity of claimant with Noah Foltz 
mentioned in the defendants' brief, to be considered in the trial on merits. 

By the Court. 

Filed June 11, 1894. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 8li22. Noah Foltz v. The United States.] 
STATEMENT OF CASE. 



The claim in the above-entitled case ffir supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished 1o the military forces of the United States for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the c6urt by 
the Committee on War Claims, House of Representatives, on the 26th day of Febru- 
ary, 1892. 

On a jirelirninary inquiry the court, on the 11th day of June, 1894, found that the 
person alleged to have furnislied the supplies or stores, or from whom they were 
alleged to have been takcu, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- 
out said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on ils merits on the J 2th day of December, 1904. 

G. A. and W. B. King, esqs., appeared lor claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
Charles Kincheloe, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the de- 
fense and protection of the interests of the United States. 



AULOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS, 335 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

That he is a citizen of the United States; that he resided diiring the late war in 
the State of Viiginia; that the following property belonging to him was taken from 
him by the United States Army and used by said Army: 

In Page County, State of Virginia, on or about April, 1862, by the forces of the 
United States, namely, General Banks's command, to wit: 

1 young stallion • $300 

1 bay mare 150 

Total 450 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF PACT. 

There was taken from the claimant in the county of Page, State of Virginia, during 
the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United 
States for the use of the Army, property of the kind and character above described, 
which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of three hundred dollars (|300). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

By the Court. 

Filed December 19, 1904. 

Test this 19th day of December, 1904. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims, 

JOHN C. LUTHOLTZ. 

[Court of ClaimB. Congressional, No. 8922. Mary Lutholte v. The United States.] 

This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur^ 
nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war 
for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that 
Mary Lutholtz, the person alleged to have fmnished such supplies or stores or from 
whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the 
United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed January 9, 1905. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 8922. John C. Lutholtz, sole heir of Mary Lutholtz, deceased, 

V. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies, or stores, alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 31st day of IMarch, 
1892. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 9th day of January, 1905, found that 
the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were 
alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- 
out said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 18th day of December, 1905. 

IVIoyers & Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by George M.. 
Anderson, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

That he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Shenan- 
doah, State of Virginia; that petitioner is grandson and sole heir and representative 
of ]\lary Lutholtz, deceased; that during the late civil war said Mary Lutholtz was a 
citizen of the United States, residing in Shenandoah County, Va. ; that during said 
war the United States military forces, under proper authority, took from said decedent 



336 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

and converted to the use of the United States Army quartermaster stores and com- 
missary supplies of kinds and values below stated, to wit: 

1 fine saddle mare $150. 00 

1 good two-horse farm wagon 100. 00 

6 sheep, at |3 each 18. 00 

14 acres of corn, 180 bushels 144. 00 

2 tons hay, at |15 per ton 30. 00 

3 fat hogs, 450 pounds net 30. 00 

60 cords wood, at $1 per cord 60. 00 

Total 532. 00 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel upon both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United 
States, by proper authority, took from the claimant's decedent property of the kind 
and character above described, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably 
worth the sum of three hundred and fifty-nine dollars ($359). No payment appears 
to have been made therefor. 

By the Court. ' 

Filed January 8, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 24th day of January, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

MARGARET A. PROCTOR. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 9413. Estate of Samuel K. Proctor, deceased, v. The United 

States.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- 
nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for 
the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Samuel 
K. Proctor, deceased, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or 
from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of 
the United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed December 11, 1905. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 9413. Margaret A. Proctor, administratrix of Samuel K. Proctor, 

deceased, v. The United States.] 

statement of case. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken 
by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for theii- use during the late 
war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Committee 
on War Clainis of the House of Representatives on the 19th day of May, 1908. 

On a preliminary inquiiy the court, on the 11th day of December, 1905, found that 
the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were 
alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States thi-ough- 
out said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 15th day of October, 1906. 

G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by W. W. 
Scott, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protec- 
tion of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes the following allegations: 

That she is the widow of Samuel K. Proctor, deceased, and resides in Baltimore, Md. ; 
that during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion she resided with her hus- 
band, the said Samuel K. Proctor, in Fauquier County, Va.; that there was taken from 
her said husband in said countv and State bv the military forces of the United States, 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 337 

by proper authority, duiing the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and 
appropriated to the use of the Army, property of the kind and value, as follows: 

4 young horses, at $150 $600 

1 young mule 150 

I cow 35 

II head of hogs, at |20 220 

8 shoats, at $5 40 

50 head of fowls 25 

(Taken about October, 1862, by General Sigel's command.) 

200 pounds of bacon, at 25 cents 50 

Potatoes, etc 100 

150 barrels of corn, at $5 750 

Fodder 50 

(Taken in the fall of 1863 by General Kilpatrick's command.) 



2,020 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDING OF FACT. 

There was taken from the claimant's decedent, Samuel K. Proctor, in the county of 
Fauquier, State of Virginia, during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the 
military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, 
property of the kind and character above described, which was then and there reason- 
ably worth the sum of five hundred and twenty dollars ($520), for which no payment 
appears to have been made. 

By the Court. 

Filed January 7, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 9th day of January, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

ELEANOR McWILLIAMS, ADMINISTRATRIX. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 4370. Henry McWilliams v. The United States.] 

This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- 
nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for 
the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Henry 
McWilliams, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom 
the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United 
States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed October 23, 1893. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 4370. Eleanor McWilliams, administratrix of Henry 
McWilliams, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken 
by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late 
war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted to the court by the Committee 
on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 1st day of May, 1888. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 23d day of October, 1893, found that the 
person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged 
to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said 
war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 19th day of December, 1904. 
George A. and William B. King, esqs., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-Gen- 
eral, by George H. Walker, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

H. Rep. 543, 60-1 22 



338 ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 

The claimant, in her petition, makes the following allegations: 

That she is the administratrix of Henry McWilliams, deceased, her warrant of 
authority being herewith brought into court. That said decedent was during the civil 
war a resident of the State of Virginia and did not give any aid or comfort to the said 
rebellion, but was throughout that war loyal to the Government of the United States. 

That the following property belonging to claimant's decedent was taken from him 
by the United States Army and used by the said Army, the date, place, and command 
being particularly stated below: 

In Fairfax County, State of Virginia, on or about the 2d day of June to December, 
1862, by the forces of the United States, namely, General George's division, consisting 
of the Fifth Regiment of New York Cavalry and the Fifth Regiment of Massachusetts 
Cavalry Volunteers, to wit: 

1 bay horse, valued at $300. 00 

1 roan horse, valued at 150. 00 

1 blooded bay, valued at 175. 00 

1 blooded bay horse, valued at 175. 00 

1 gray horse, valued at 175. 00 

Total 925. 00 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following- 

FINDING OF FACTS. 

There was taken from the claimant's decedent, in the comity of Fairfax, State of 
Virginia, during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces of 
the United States, for the use of the Army, j^roperty of the kind and character above 
described, which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of five hundred and 
seventj^-iive dollars ($575), for which no payment appears to have been made. 

By the Court. 

Filed December 22, 1904. 

A true copy. 

Test this 16th day of January, 1905. 

[seal.] ARcifiBALD HoPKiNS, Chief Clerh. 

ELIJAH P. MYERS. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 1356. Elijah P. Myers v. The United States.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or 
furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use din-ing the late war 
for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that 
Elijah P. Myers, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or 
from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government 
of the United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed May 25, 1903. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 1356. Elijah P. Myers v. The United States.] 
STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the aljove-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to lia^e been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 28th day of Feb- 
ruary, 1887. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 25th day of May, 1903, found that the 
person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom lliey were alleged 
to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout 
said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of Januaiy, 1905. 
Ct. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by James A. 
Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of tlie interests of the United States. 



ALLOWANCE Or CERTAIN CLAIMS. 339 

The claimant, in his petition, makes the following allegations: 

That he is a citizen of the United States, residing in the county of Loudoun, State 
of Vii'ginia, and has a claim against the United States for stores and supplies taken 
by or furnished to the Army of the United States for army use, at or near Leesburg, 
Loudoun County, Va., at the times hereinafter stated, and by the officers named, 
said property being reasonably worth at the time and place the value here given, 
that is to say: 

February 9, 1862, Fifth Michigan Cavalry: 

2 horses, at |200 and |175 $375 

1 set of blacksmiths' tools 50 

January 12, 1863, Twelfth Pennsylvania Cavalry: 

1 horse 150 

400 pounds of bacon, at 20 cents 80 

450 pounds of beef, at 12 cents 54 

205 bushels of corn, at $1 205 

35 cords of wood, at $4 140 

July 20, 1864, Twelfth Army Corps: 

120 pounds of bacon, at 20 cents .' 24 

2 horses, at $200 400 

42 tons of hay, at $20 840 

Total 2. 318 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

There was taken from the claimant, in the county of Loudoun, State of Virginia, 
during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United 
States, for the use of the Army, property of the kind and character above described, 
which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of one thousand one hundred 
and ninety dollars ($1,190), for which no payment appears to have been made. 

By the Court. 

Filed January 16, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 20th day of January, 1905. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

JOHN B. MYERS, ADMINISTRATOR OF ALEXANDER MYERS. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, Nos. 12206 and 12211 consolidated. John B. Myers, administrator 

of estate of Alexander Myers, deceased, v. The United States.] 

statement of case. 

This is a claim for property alleged to have been taken from claimant's decedent by 
the military forces of the United States during the late civil war. 

April 6, 1906, the House of Representatives, by resolution, referred to the com't 
under the provisions of the act of March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act, a bill as 
follows: 

"H. R. 3478, Fifty-ninth Congress, first session.] 

,,A BILL For the relief of the personal representative of the estate of Alexander Myers, deceased. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay to the personal representatives of the estate of Alexander 
Myers, late of Henrico County, Virginia, the sum of six thousand dollars, in full com- 
pensation for crops, building material, wood, horses, mules, cattle, hogs, poultry, 
farming implements, and other property and quartermaster stores and supplies taken 
and used by the Army of the United States during the late war of the rebellion." 

The claimant appeared and filed his petition in this court May 18, 1906, in which he 
makes substantially, the following allegations: 

That he is the duly appointed and qualified administrator of the estate of Alexander 
Myers, deceased, late of the city of Richmond, Va. ; that his decedent was loyal to the 



340 ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 

Government of the United States tlii'ougliout the late civil war; that dui'ing said period 
his decedent was taken prisoner by the Confederate authorities and confined in prison 
at Salisbury, N. C. That at the time he was so taken prisoner he was the owner of a 
farm in Charles City County, Va., consisting of 560 acres of land, 200 acres of which 
were under cultivation and the remaining 360 acres contained a lot of fine timber of 
various kinds, as well as a gi'eat quantity of cord wood; that there were also a good 
dwelling and other houses on the place; that upon his return from prison he found 
his property in the possession of the military forces of the United States under the 
coramand of General McClellan, and that nothing was left of said property but the 
land; that the property so taken and the damage done to the residence have been 
placed by competent judges at the sum of $6,500, and that such amount is justly due 
from the United States. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 13th day of March, 
1907. 

John Goode, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by M. 
A. Coles, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interest of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

riNDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The claimant's decedent, Alexander Myers, was loyal to the Government of the 
United States throughout the late civil war. 

II. Dm-ing said period the military forces of the United States, operating under 
General McClellan, took possession of the farm in Charles City County, Va., belonging 
to claimant's decedent and occupied and damaged the same. Such use and occupa- 
tion and damage in excess of ordinary wear and tear, together with the taking of the 
stores and supplies thereon, were then and there reasonably worth the sum of two 
thousand six hundred and eighty-two dollars ($2,682), no part of which appears to 
have been paid. 

III. The claim herein was never presented to any Department of the Government 
prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by the House of Repre- 
sentatives under the act of March 3, 1887, as hereinbefore mentioned, and no reason is 
given for not so presenting the same. 

IV. In the claim of John B. Myers, administrator of the estate of Margaret Myers, 
deceased (being the same claimant as administrator of the wife of said decedent), the 
evidence fails to prove the said claim other than as herein set forth. 

By the Court. 
A true copy. 

Attest this 19th day of November, 1907. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

JOHN W. KELLAR, ADMINISTRATOR. 

[Court of Chums. Congressional, No. 9320. Estate of Eliza Dickenson Rlcketts v. The United States.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- 
nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for 
the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Eliza 
Dickenson Ricketts, deceased, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or 
stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Govern- 
ment of the United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed December 5, 1904. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 9320. John W. Kellar, administrator of the estate of Eliza J. 
Ricketts, deceased, v. The United States.] 

statement of case. 

The claim in the above-ontitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their use during 
the late war for \ho suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the 
House of Representatives on the 14th day of February, 1906. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 5th day of December, 1906, found that 
the person alleged to have furnished tlie supplies or stores, or from whom they were 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 341 

alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- 
out said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 14th day of January, 1907. 

Harry F. Lerch, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by F. W. 
Collins, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and pro- 
tection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant, in the petition, makes the following allegations: 

That the claimant was a citizen of the United States, residing in Abingdon, State of 
Virginia, where she resided during the late war of the rebellion, and did not give any 
aid or comfort to the rebellion, but was throughout the said war loyal to the Govern- 
ment of the United States. 

That in or about December, 1864, the United States forces, under command of Gen- 
erals Stoneman, Gillam, and Burbridge, took from the decedent, in Washington 
County, Va., quartermaster's stores and commissary supplies of the value of $1,000 
and appropriated the same to the use of the United States Army, as follows: 

1 gray horse, 7 years old $200. 00 

1 bay horse, 5 years old 200. 00^ 

1 bay horse, 4 years old 150. OO' 

1 bay mare, 8 years old 150. 00 

1 gray mare, 8 years old 150. 00 

1 sorrel horse 150. 00 



1, 000. 00 



The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OP FACT. | 

During the late civil war the military forces of the United States, by proper author- 
ity, for military purposes, took property from the claimant's decedent, in Washington 
County, Va., of the kind described in the petition, which was then and there worth 
the sum of six hundred and forty -five dollars ($645), no part of which appears to have 
been paid. 

By the Court. 

Filed January 21, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 29th day of January, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

SALLIE R. TAYLOR AND OTHERS. 

[Court of Claims.'^ Congressional, (No. 9914. Sallie fR. Taylor, Mary S. Armistead, Anna Gee, and 
Sue P. Temple, sole heirs of Theodorick Bland, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court February 15, 1899, by resolution of 
the House of Representatives under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known 
as the Tucker Act: 

■■Mi"^ BILL for the relief of the legal heirs of Doctor Theodorick Bland. 

' 'Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, directed 
to pay to the legal heirs of Doctor Theodorick Bland, of Virginia, the sum of six thou- 
sand dollars, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated. 

"Sec. 2. That this act shall be in force from its passage." 

The claimants appeared and filed their petition in this court May 25, 1906, in 
which they make the following allegations: J 

That they are the sole heirs of Theodorick Bland, deceased, and reside in Prince 
George County, Va., where they resided during the late civil war; that diu-ing the 
late civil war, and on or about May, 1864, the military forces of the United States, 
by proper authority, took possession of their farm situate at Jordans Point, Virginia, 
and used and occupied the same for military purposes until on or about September, 



342 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

1865; that during said occupancy the said military forces appropriated to their use a 
quantity of timber and material from buildings, as follows: 

Item 1. 131,000 feet of lumber, at §20 per thousand $2, 620 

Item 2. 8,314 cords of wood, at $1 per cord : 8, 314 

item 3. Rent of farm from May, 1864, to September, 1865, at $2,000 per annum. 2, 666 

Total 13, 600 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 3d day of Decem- 
ber, 1906. 

G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by 
W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears that Theodoric Bland, the father of the claimants, died in 1859 or 
1860, testate, leaving sm'viving him his wife, Mary Bland, and five children. By his 
last will and testament said Theodoric Bland devised all his property, real and per- 
sonal, to his wife, Mary Bland, and prior to the taking of tlae property herein 
claimed for, the said Mary Bland, to wit, in 1860 or 1861, departed this life intestate, 
leaving surviving as her sole heirs at law Theodoric Bland, jr., Sallie Russell Bland, 
Mary S. Bland, Anna Bland, and Sue P. Bland, who were the sole owners of the 
property at the time of the alleged taking. 

II. It does not appear that Theodoric Bland, jr., and Sallie Russell Bland were 
loyal to the Government of the United States during the war for the suppression of 
the rebellion. 

It does appear that during said war Mary S. Bland, Anna Bland, and Sue P. Bland 
were loyal to the Government- of the United States, being of tender years. 

III. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion there was taken from the 
claimants by the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the 
use of the Army, property as above described, which was then and there worth the 
sum of $6,000. 

The proportionate shares of the above-named Mary S. Bland, Anna Bland, and 
Sue P. Bland would amount to the sum of tln-ee thousand six hundred dollars 
($3,600.00). 

IV. Laches. — It does not appear that said claim was ever presented to any depart- 
ment or officer of the Government prior to its presentation to Congi-ess and reference 
to this com't as aforesaid, and no evidence is offered tending to excuse claimants for 
not having resorted to any established legal remedy. 

By the Court. 
Filed December 10, 1906. 

A true copy. » 

Test this 4th day of January, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claivis. 

ROBERT AYATERS. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 795S. Robert Waters v. The United States.] 

This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- 
nished to the militarj' forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the 
suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary iuquiiy, finds that Robert 
Waters, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores or from whom the 
same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of tlie United States 
throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed May 16, 1894. 

[('oiirt of Claims. Congressional cise No. 7958. Robert Waters v. The United States.] 
STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in tlio above-entitled case for sujjplies or stores alleged to have been taken 
by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAHsT CLAIMS. 343 

war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted to the court by the Committee 
on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 6th day of August, 1890. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 16th day of May, 1904, found that the per- 
son alleged to have fiirnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to 
have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war,- 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 23d day of October, 1905. 

Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by John Q. 
Thompson, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

That he is now and during the late civil war was residing at Dumfries, Va. ; that dur- 
ing said war the United States military forces, acting under proper authority, took from 
petitioner and converted to the use of the United States Army quartermaster stores and 
commissary supplies of the kinds and values below stated, to wit: 

3 cattle, at |25 each $75. 00 

200 cords of standing wood, at $1 per cord 200. 00 

6,750 rails 115. 00 

2 tons of hay, at $20 per ton 40. 00 

Grass from half an acre 10. 00 

1 fine horse 150. 00 

1,160 feet of lumber, used for winter quarters, at $15 per M 17. 40 

20 rods stone fence, used for ovens and chimneys 20. 00 

25 bushels of shelled corn, at $1 per bushel 25. 00 

Total 642.40 

FINDING OF FACT. 

During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United 
States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took from claimant in Dumfries, 
Prince William County, Va., property as above described, which at the time and place 
of taking was reasonably worth the sum of five hundred and fifty-eight dollars ($558). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. -' 

By the Court. 

Filed October 30, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 6th day of December, 1905. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

W. C. GILL, ADMINISTRATOR. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 9938. W. C. Gill, administrator de bonis non of the estate of 
Edward 0. Watkins, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF THE CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court February 6, 1899, by resolution of the 
House of Representatives under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as 
the Tucker Act: 

"A BILL For the relief of heirs of E. O. Watkins. 

"jBe it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America- 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, au- 
thorized and directed, to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appro- 
priated, to the heirs of Edward O. Watkins, deceased, late of Chesterfield County, Va., 
the sum of $40,000, for stores and supplies taken by the Federal forces for their^use 
during the late war of the rebellion." - t- - Ms-^i 

The claimants appeared and filed their petition in this court January 9,' 1905, in 
which they make the following allegations: — ---^ '■^• 

_ That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion Edward 0. Watkins 
resided at Bermuda Hundred, Chesterfield Coimty, Va. 



344 ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIiS' CLAIMS. 

That during said period the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, 
took fi-om said Edward O. Watkins, in said county and State, quartermaster stores and 
commissary supplies and appropriated the same to the use of the Army as follows: 

Item 1. 173 acres of timber, 40 cords per acre, 6,920 cords of wood, at $1.50. . $10, 380 

Item 2. Use and occupation of farm for ten months, at 812,000 per year 10, 000 

Item 3. 1 sawmill and engine 2, 500 

Item 4. 18,550 feet of fencing 920 

Item. 5. Lumber fi'om 2 barns 1, 500 

Item 6. 7 horses, at $150 1, 050 

Item 7. 22 mules, at $100 2, 200 

Item 8. 27,000 pounds of pork 350 

Item 9. 52 sheep, at S5 260 

Item 10. 55 cows, at $25 1, 375 

Total 30, 535 

(Taken in May, 1864, by General Butler's command.) 

The]^case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 1st day of February, 
1906. 'G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, 
by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

^The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears fi'om the evidence that the claimants' decedent was loyal to the Gov- 
ernment of the United States throughout the war of the rebellion. 

II. .There was taken fi-om the claimants' decedent, in the county of Chesterfield, 
State of Virginia, diu'ing the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military 
forces of the United States, for the use of the Army, property of the kind and character 
above described, which was then and there reasonal)ly worth the sum of four thousand 
nine hundred and twelve dollars ($4,912) for which no pajniient appears to have been 

-made. 

No allowance is made for use and occupation of farm, as claimed in item 2 of the 
petition. 

III. The evidence shows that the original claimant, Edward O. Watkins, died in 
the year 1865; that the first presentation of the claim was to Congi'ess in 1875; that 
some of the members of the family at the time were not of age and were ignorant of 
the mode of procedure in such cases. 

By the Court. 
Filed March 12, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 1st day of December, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

ADDIE L. BAILEY. 
[Court of Claims. Congressional. No. 9710. William G. AVebber v. The United States.] 

This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- 
nished to the military forces of the United States for their use dming the late war 
for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that 
William G. Webber, the person allege^ to have furnished such supplies or stores, 
or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government 
of the United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed April 7, 1902. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 9710. Addie L. Bailey, sole heir of William G. Webber, 

deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the militarv forces of the United States for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of tfie rebellion was transmitted to the coiut by the 



ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 345. 

Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 23d day of April , 
1898. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 7th day of April, 1902, found that the 
person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were 
alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- 
out said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 16th day of March, 1904. 

G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by James A. 
Tanner, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes the following allegations: 

That she is the sole heir of William G. AVebber, deceased, and is a citizen of the 
United States, residing in Baltimore, Md., and that her deceased father, William G. 
Webber, resided in Norfolk County, State of Virginia, during the late war of the 
rebellion; that at different times dming said period the United States forces, by 
proper authority, took from her decedent quartermaster stores and commissaiy sup- 
plies of the value of $1,666.50 and appropriated the same to the use of the United 
States Army, as follows: 

Lumber from two-story frame house and kitchen $931. 50 

22,000 feet of fencing and 300 cedar posts 735. 00 

Total 1, 666. 50 

(Taken in May, 1864, by Twentieth New York Cavalry.) 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF PACT. 

There was taken from the estate of William G. Webber, in Norfolk County, State 
of Virginia, during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces 
of the United States, for the use of the Army, property of the kind above described, 
which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of four hundred 
and fifty dollars ($450.00), for which no payment appears to have been made. 

By the Court. 
Filed March 20, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 2d day of November, 1905. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

P. L. WILLIAMS, ADMINISTRATOR. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 9496. Estate of John S. Pendleton, deceased, v. The United 

States.] 

This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- 
nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for 
the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that John S, 
Pendleton, deceased, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or 
from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of 
the United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed December 1, 1902. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 9496. P. L. Williams, administrator de bonis non ciun 
[testamento annexo of John S. Pendleton, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 9th day of December. 
1896. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 1st day of December, 1902, found that 
the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were 



316 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States througli- 
out said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 15th day of October, 1906. 

G. "\V. Z. Black, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by George 
M. Anderson, esc|., his assistant, and under his dhection, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations; 

That he is a citizen of the United States, residing in Culpeper County, Va., where 
his decedent resided during the late civil war. That diuing the late war for the sup- 
pression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, 
took from his decedent in Culpeper County, Va., and appropriated to the use of the 
United States Army property of the kind and value as follows: 

110 acres of timber, 5,500 cords of wood, at $4 ". S22, 000. 00 

100 acres of timber, 1,000 cords of wood, at §4 4, 000. 00 

41,600 rails, at §75 per M 120. 00 

903 yards of plank fence 162. 54 

1,034 yards of plank fence 116. 31 

Posts for above fence and construction 538. 50 

Bam. com house, etc. , on Bowers farm 500. 00 

Carpenter shop, tools, and appiirtenances 250. 00 

Damages to harness 200. 00 

Plantation wagon, thrashing machine, drill 425. 00 

Overseer's house with outhouses 750. 00 

Stables, bam. carriage shed, tool house, etc 600. 00 

Injuries about house and garden 100. 00 

Tool house, and other buildings 50. 00 

Wagon wheel, and gears for 10 horses - 120. 00 

8 new gates, posts, latches, and lumber 210. 00 

Entire crop of 1863 — com, sorghum, and peas 1, 275. 00 

Agricultural implements, etc 300. 00 

Total 34, 717. 35 

(Taken from September, 1863, to March 15, 1864, by General Newton's command.) 
The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

During the war for the suppression of the rebellion there was taken, by the military 
forces of the United States under proper authority, for the use of the Army, property 
as above described, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the 
sum of six thousand one hundred and twenty dollars (.?6,120). 

It does not appear that any payment has been made for any part thereof. 

By the Court. 

Filed October 22, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 5th day of December, 1906. 

[sE.\L.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clei'k Court of Claims. 

SAMUEL A. WINE, EXECUTOR. 
[Court of Claims. Congressional, No.82ti9. Estate of Michael Wine, deceased, v. The United States.] 

This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- 
nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war 
for the suppret?sion of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquu-y, finds that 
Michael A\'ine, deceased, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, 
or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government 
of the United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed December 1. 1902. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 347 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. S269. Samuel A. Wine, executor of Michael Wine, jr., deceased, 

V. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies, or stores, alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their- use during the 
late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Com- 
mittee on War Claims of the House of Eepresentatives on the 2d day of March, 1891. 

On a preliminary inquiry the com-t, on the 1st day of December, 1902, found that the 
person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged 
to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said 
war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 19th day of November, 1906. 

G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by John Q. 
Thompson, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations : 

That he is the executor of the last will and testament of Michael Wine, jr. , deceased, 
and resides in Shenandoah County, State of Virginia, where his decedent resided 
during the late civil war. 

That during said war the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, 
took from his decedent, in said county and State, and appropriated to the use of the 
Army, stores and supplies of the quantity and value as follows : 

By General Banks's command : 

Item 1. Iblackhorse $120.00 

By General Fremont's command: 

2. 1 sorrel mare 140. 00 

3. 1 iron-gray mare 100. 00 

4. 1 bay mare 25. 00 

5. 4 head of cattle 200. 00 

By General Hunter's command: 

6. 300 pounds of bacon 60. 00 

7. 50 bushels of corn 37. 50 

8. 1 wagon and gears 35. 00 

9. 4 saddles _. . 76. 00 

By General Sheridan's command: 

10. 1 iron-gray mare 150. 00 

11. 1 black horse 150 00 

12. 2 heifers • 80 00 

Total 1, 273. 50 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

Dm-ing the war for the suppression of the rebellion there was taken from the claim- 
ant's decedent, Michael Wine, jr., in Shenandoah County, Va., by proper authority, 
for the use of the Army, property as above described which at the time and place of 
taking was reasonably worth the sum of seven hundred and fifty dollars ($750.00). 

It does not appear that payment has been made for any part thereof. 

By the Court. 

Filed December 3, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 16th day of February, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



348 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 

TRUSTEES OF FOUR MILE CREEK BAPTIST CHURCH. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12207. Trustees Four Mile Creek Baptist Church v. The 

United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court on the 31st day of iSIarch, 1906, by resolu- 
tion of the House of Representatives under the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, 
known as the Tucker Act: 

"A BILL For the relief of trustees of Four Mile Creek Baptist Church. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of 
America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, 
authorized to pay to the trustees of Four Mile Creek Baptist Church, in Henrico 
County, Virginia, the sum of one thousand two hundred dollars, for loss sustained by 
the depredations of the United States Army during the war between the States." 

The claimants appeared and filed their petition in this court April 23, 1906, in which 
they make the following allegations: 

That Charles L. McCaull, R. E. Garnett, and A. N. Pearce have been appointed 
trustees of Four Mile Creek Baptist Church, of Henrico County, Va. ; that during the 
civil war in the autumn of 1864 the church was pulled down by soldiers of the Federal 
Army and the material thereof was placed in wagons, taken away, and appropriated to 
the use of the said Army; said church was located near the New Market road, about 10 
miles^below the city of Richmond, and could not have been replaced for less than 
$1,000 or $2,000; that during said war the said trustees, as such, gave no aid, counsel, 
or encouragement in support of the Southern cause. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 3d day of December, 
1906. 

John Goode, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by M. A. 
Coles, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protec- 
tion of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OP PACT. 

I. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the Four Mile Creek Baptist 
Church, as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States. 

II. During the said war the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, 
for the use of the Army, took possession of the building belonging to the Four Mile 
Creek Baptist Church and destroyed the same. The said building was then and there 
reasonably worth the sum of eight hundred dollars, no part of which appears to have 
been paid. 

III. It does not appear that said claim was ever presented to any department or 
officer of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this 
court as aforesaid. 

By the Court. 
Filed December 10, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 14th day of December, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims, 

TRUSTEES OF THE WESTOVER CHURCH. 

{Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12205. Trustees of Westover Church v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court on the 31st day of March, 1906, by 
resolution of the House of Representatives under the act of Congress approved March 
3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act: 

A BILL For the relief of certain churches in the State of Virginia. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of Avrerica 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 349 

ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 
to claimants in this act named, the several sums appropriated herein, the same being 
in full for and the receipt of the same to be taken and accepted in each case as a full 
and final release and discharge of their respective claims for use, occupation, and 
damage to their buildings by the United States military authorities during the civil 
war, namely: 

****** * 

To the Westover Church, Charles County, Vu'ginia, one thousand dollars. 

******* 

The claimants appeared and filed their petition in this court April 26, 1906, in 
which they make the following allegations: 

That D. G. Tyler, John A. Ruffin, and E. C. Harrison have been duly appointed 
trustees of Westover Church, in Charles City County, Va., which was pulled down 
and destroyed by a portion of the United States Army operating in Charles City 
County, Va., and the material composing the same was taken and appropriated to 
the use of the said Army; that during said war the said trustees as such gave no aid, 
counsel, or encouragement to the southern cause; that the bill for the relief places the 
amount of damages and taking of material at $1,000. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 3d day of Decem- 
ber, 1906. 

John Goode, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by M. A. 
Coles, esq., his assistant and under his du*ection, appeared for the defense and pro- 
tection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OP FACT. " 

I. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the Westover Church was 
loyal to the Government of the United States as a church. 

II. During the said war the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, 
for the use of the Army, took possession of the church building belonging to the West- 
over Church and occupied same for about one month in 1862 and damaged same by 
tearing out the floors, pews, and other woodwork. The reasonable rental value, 
together with repairs incident to such occupation, was the sum of seven hundred 
and fifty dollars ($750), for which no payment appears to have been made. 

By the Court. 
Filed December 10, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 14th day of December, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

• Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

TRUSTEES OF METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, LAMBERTS POINT, VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 10990. Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church at 
Iiamberts Point, Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for rent of building alleged to have been taken 
by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the la,te 
war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Commit- 
tee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 3d day of February, 1903. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 19th day of Decem- 
ber, 1904. 

G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for claimants and the Attorney-General, by F. DeO. 
Faust, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimants in their petition make the following allegations: 

That they are the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church at Larnberts Point, 
Va. ; that during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces 
of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building of 
said Methodist Church and used and occupied the same for military purposes, by 



350 ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIJST CLAIMS. 

reason of which repairs were rendered necessary, and the United States is justly 
indebted to said church, as follows: 

For use and occupation of church building, three years, at $360 per year |1, 080 

For repairs rendered necessary on account of such use and occupation 300 

Total 1, 380 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the Methodist Church of Lamberts Point, 
Va., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the 
war for the suppression of the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the 
United States, by proper authority, took possession of and used the church building 
belonging to the" Methodist Episcopal Church of Lamberts Point, Va., for military 
purposes, and damaged the same. The reasonable rental value thereof, including 
repairs incident to said use and occupation, was the sum of seven hundred and eighty 
dollars (S780). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

By the Court. 
Filed December 22, 1904. 

A true copv. * 

Test this 36th day of December, 1904. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

WEST VIRGINIA. 

CHARLES COOK, ADMINISTRATOR OF JOHN COOK. 

ICourt of Claims. Congressional, No. 10310. Estate of John Cook, deceased, v. The United States.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or 
furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war 
for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that 
John Cook, deceased, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or 
from whom the same are alleged to have lieen taken, was loyal to the Government 
of the United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed January 7, 1907. 

(Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 10310. John Cook, deceased, Charles Cook, the administrator, 

V. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken 
by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late 
war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Committee 
on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 15th day of January, 1901. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 7th day of January, 1907, found that 
the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were 
alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- 
out said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 24th day of October, 1907. 

George A. & William B. King, esqs., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-Gen- 
eral, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of tlie interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

I. That he is the administrator of John Cook, deceased, his warrant of authority 
beintc herewith brousrht into court; that said decedent was during the late war a 



ALLOWANCE OF CEETATN CLAIMS. 351 

resident of the State of West Virginia, and did not give any aid or comfort to the said 
rebellion, but was throughout that war loyal to the Government of the United States. 

II. That the following property belonging to said John Cook was taken from him by 
the United States Army, the date, place, and command being particularly stated 
below: 

In Fayette County, in the State of West Virginia, in the winter of 1862, by Lieut. 
R. B. Gardner, quartermaster Twenty-third Ohio Volunteers, stationed at Fayette- 
ville, to wit, 27 head of beef cattle, at |30 a head, $810. 

III. That a claim for said property was presented to the Commissary-General, the 
items of said claim being as heretofore stated. 

Said claim was not allowed by said tribunal, the ground for said action being that 
it was not considered that the claim was just. 

That no other action than as aforesaid has been had on this claim 'in Congress or by 
any of the Departments; that the claimant is the sole owner of this claim and the only 
person interested therein; that no assignment or transfer of this claim, or of any part 
thereof or interest therein, has been made; that the claimant is justly entitled to the 
amount herein claimed from the United States after allowing all just credits and 
offsets; that the claimant is a citizen of the United States, and the claimant believes 
the facts as stated in this petition to be true. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

During the late civil war the military forces of the United States, for the use of the 
Army, by proper authority, took from the claimant's decedent in Fayette County, 
State of West Virginia, property of the kind and character described in the petition. 
The reasonable value thereof at the time and place of taking was the sum of five hun- 
dred and fifty dollars (|550). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

By THE Court. 

Filed October 28, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 29th day of November, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

ANDREW^ CROUCH ET AL., ADMINISTRATORS. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 1477. Estate of Jacob Crouch, deceased, v. The United States.] 

This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- 
nished to the military forces of the United States for then- use during the late war 
for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that 
Jacob Crouch, deceased, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, 
or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government 
of the United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed March 9, 1903. 

[ Court of Claims. Congressional case, No. 1477. Andrew Crouch, Newton Crouch, and B. L. Butcher, 
executors of Jacob Crouch, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the Stli day of Feb- 
ruary, 1887. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 9th day of March, 1903, found that the 
person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged 
to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said 
war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 21st day of November, 1904. 



352 ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. 

G. AV. Z. Black, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by W. W. 
Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protec- 
tion of the interests of the United States. 

The claimants in then petition make the following allegations: 

That they are citizens of the United States, residing in the coimty of Randolph, 
State of West Vu-ginia; and that they are the legal representatives of Jacob Crouch, 
deceased, formerly a citizen of said county and State; that said decedent resided 
dming the late war of 1861 in the county of Randolph and State of Virginia, and that 
as legal representatives your petitioners have a claim against the United States for 
stores and supplies taken by or furnished to the Army of the United States by Jacob 
Crouch for army use, at or near Elkwater, Randolph County, W. Va., at the timps 
hereinafter stated and by the officers named : 

2 horses at |150 |300. 00 

20,000 rails, 262i cords wood at $3.50 918.75 

1,000 cords of standing timber at $1 1, 000. 00 

30 tons of hay at §20 per ton 600. 00 

500 bushels of corn at SI per bushel '. 500. 00 

100 head of cattle at $50 per head 5, 000. 00 

50 head of sheep at |6 per head 300. 00 

Total 8, 618. 75 

(Taken in the fall of 1861 by General Reynolds's command.) 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

There was taken from the claimants' decedent, in Randolph County, State of West 
Virginia, during the war of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States 
for the use of the Army, property of the kind and character above described, which 
was then and there reasonably worth the sum of three thousand seven hundred and 
ten dollars (83,710), for which no payment appears to have been made. 

By the Court. 

Filed December 5, 1904. 

A true copy. 

Test this 15th day of February, 1905. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

WARWICK BUTTON, ADMINISTRATOR. 

Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 6020. Warwick Hutton, administrator of Samuel Morrison 
deceased, v. The United States.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or 
furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war 
for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that 
Samuel Morrison (now deceased), the person alleged to have furnished such supplies 
or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the 
Government of the United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed January 10, 1898. 

Court of Claims. Congressional case Xo. 6020. Warwick Hutton, administrator of Samuel Morrison, 

deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 20th dav of August, 
1888. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 10th day of January, 1898, found that 
the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were 
alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- 
out said war. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIiq- CLAIMS. 353 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 30th day of October, 
1902. George A. King, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
Charles F. Kincheloe, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations : 

That he is the administrator of the estate of Samuel Morrison, deceased; that the 
following property belonging to Samuel Morrison was taken from him by the U. S. 
Army and used by the said Army : 

13 horses, at $125 each $1, 625 

3 mules, at |150 each 450 

2, 075 

Taken in Randolph County, in the State of West Virginia, on or about July 20, 
1861, by the United States forces, namely. Colonel Key, aid-de-camp of General 
McClellan's command. 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments af 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDING OP FACTS. 

There was taken from claimant's decedent, in Randolph County, State of West 
Virginia, during the war of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United' States, 
for the use of the Army, property of the kind and character above described, which 
was there and then reasonably worth the sum of one thousand three hundred and 
forty dollars ($1,340). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

By the Court. 

Filed November 3, 1902. 

A true copy. 

Test this 4th day of December, A. D, 1902. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

. WILLIAM W. MYERS, EXECUTOR. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 8813. William "W. Myers, executor of James W. Myers, 

deceased, v. The United States.] 

Order allowing defendant's motion for new trial, withdrawing former findings, and filing 
new findings for the sum of $650. 

It is ordered by the court that the defendant's motion for a new trial in the above- 
entitled case, filed on the 12th day of October, 1897, be allowed; that the findings of 
fact heretofore filed on the 13th day of January, 1896, be withdrawn, and new findings 
of fact are this day filed in claimant's favor for the sum of $650. 

By the Court. 

Filed December 11, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 21st day of December, 1905. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 8813. William W. Myers, executor of James W. Myera, 
deceased, v. The United States.] 

statement of case. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims, House of Representatives, on the 23d day of March, 1892. j 

On a preliminary inquiry the court on the 12th day of June, 1893, found that the 
person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were 

H. Rep. 543, 60-1 23 



354 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

alleged to haA'e been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- 
out said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 4th day of December, 1905. 

Moyers & Consaul, esqs., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Felix 
Brannigan, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations : 

That he is the executor of James W. Myers, deceased, who resided in the county of 
Jefferson, State of West Virginia, dming the late war of the rebellion; that at different 
times during said period the United States forces, by proper authority, took from him 
quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the value of $1,665 and appropriated 
the same to the use of the United States Anny, as follows: 

1,000 bushels corn $1, 000 

20 tons hay 400 

50 bushels wheat 75 

26 sheep ] 30 

10 days' use of team 60 

Total 1, 665 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OP PACT. 

During the war for the suppression of the rebellion there was taken from the claim- 
ant's decedent, in the county of Jefferson, State of West Virginia, by the military 
forces of the United States, under proper authority, for the use of the AiTny, property 
of the kind and character above described which was then and there reasonably worth 
the sum of six hundred and fifty dollars ($650), for which no payment appears to have 
been made. 

By the Court. 

Filed December 11, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 21st day of December, 1905. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

HENRY O'BANNON AND WILLIAM A. O'BANNON. ' 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 1982. Henry O'Bannon and William A. O'Bannon, sole heirs 
of Alfred O'Bannon, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The claim in the above entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 2d day of March, 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 8th day of April, 1889, found that the 
person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or fi'om whom they were alleged 
to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said 
war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 20th day of March, 1905. 
G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by W. W. 
Scott, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and pro- 
tection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimants in their petition make the following allegations: 

That they are citizens of the State of West Virginia, residing in the county of Jef- 
ferson, in which county decedent resided during the late war of the rebellion. 

That during said war the military authorities of the United States took from the 
farm of their decedent divers supplies, which were used by said troops for their sup- 
port, and which supplies belonged to and were owned by decedent, and which were 
of the value of $528, as follows: 

408 bushels of com, at $1 $408 

6 tons of hay, at $20 120 

Total 528 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 



355 



The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 



FINDINGS OF FACT. 



There was taken from the claimant's decedent, in the county of Jefferson, State of 
West Virginia, during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military 
forces of the United States, for the use of the Army, property of the kind and char- 
acter above described, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth 
the sum of three hundred and four dollars (1304), for which no payment appears to 
have been made. 

By the Court. 

Filed April 5, 1905. 



A true copy. 

Test this 3d day of June, 1905. 

[seal.] 



John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



H. L. BRISCOE; heir of MARIA SHIRLEY. 
[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10950. Estate of Maria Shirley, deceased, v. The United States.] 

This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- 
nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for 
the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Maria 
Shirley, deceased, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or 
from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of 
the United States throughout said war. 

By THE Court. 

Filed November 2, 1903. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 10950. H. L. Briscoe, sole heir of Maria Shirley, 
deceased, v. The United States.] 

statement of case. 



The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or fiu-nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims, House of Representatives, on the 13th day of January, 
1903. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 2d day of November, 1903, found that 
the person alleged to have furnished the supplies and stores, or from whom they were 
alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- 
out said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 21st day of November, 1905. 
C. A. Brandenburg, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by James 
A. Tanner, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant, in his petition, makes the following allegations: 

That he is a citizen of the United States, residing at Winston, Culpeper County, 
State of Virginia; that Maria Shirley resided during the late war of the rebellion in 
Jefferson County, State of West Virginia; that at different times during said period the 
United States forces, by proper authority, took from Maria Shirley quartermaster 
stores and commissary supplies of the value of $438 and appropriated the same to the 
use of the United States Army, as follows, in March, 1862: 

1^ tons of timothy hay, at $20 $30. 00 

4 tons straw, at $10 40. 00 

4 acres timber, 25 cords per acre, at $1 100. 00 

720 panels fence, 9 rails per panel, 80 rails per cord, 81 cords, at $3 243. 00 

1 acre timber, 25 cords per acre, at $1 25. 00 

Total 438. 00 



356 ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OP FACT. 

There was taken from the claimant's decedent, in Jefferson County, State of' West 
Virginia, dxiring the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces of 
the United States, for the use of the Army, property of the kind above described, 
which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of two hundred and sixty dollars 
(|260), for which no payment appears to have been made. 

By the Court. 

Filed December 4, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 13th day of December, 1905., 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

JOSEPH C. SMITH. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10216. Joseph C. Smith v. The United States.] 

This caee, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or 
furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war 
for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that 
Joseph C. Smith, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from 
whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the 
United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed October 26, 1903. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10216. Joseph C. Smith v. The United States.] 
statement of case. * 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 18th dav of March, 
1900. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 26th day of October, 1903, found that 
the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were 
alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- 
out said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 17th day of December, 1906. 

G. W. Hott, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by James A. 
Tanner, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and pro- 
tection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

That he is a citizen of the United States, residing in Jefferson County, State of West 
Virginia, and that he resided during the late war of the rebellion in Washington 
Couuty, Md.; that at different times during said period the United States forces, by 
proper authority, took from him quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the 
value of $1,100 and appropriated the same to the use of the United States Army, as 
follows: ^ 

36 tons of hay, at $25 per ton $900 

200 bushels of oats, at $1 per bushel 200 

Total - 1, 100 

Taken in July and August, 1864, by General Custer's command. 
The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

findings Ot" FACT. 

I. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the 
United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took possession of and 



ALLOWAlSrCE OP CERTAIlSr CLAIMS. 357 

used quartermaster stores as above described belonging to claimant, Joseph C. Smith, 
which at the time and place of taking were reasonably worth the sum of six hundred 
and twenty dollars ($620). 

It does not appear that payment has been made for any part thereof. 

By the Court. 

Filed December 24, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 2d day of January, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerh Court of Claims. 

TRUSTEES OF THE FREE CHURCH OF BURLINGTON, W. VA. 

rCourt of Claims. Congressional, No. 11356. The Free Church of Burlington, W. Va., v. The United 

States.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- 
nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for 
the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that the 
Free Church of Burlington, W. Va., as a church, the church alleged to have furnished 
such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was 
loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed December 19, 1904. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11356. Trustees of the Free Church of Burlington, W. Va., v. 

The United States.] 

statement op case. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for the rent of church building, alleged to 
have been used by the military forces of the United States, for their use during the 
ate war for the> suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 17th day of IVlarch, 
1904. 

On a preliminary inquiry on the 19th day of December, 1904, the court found that 
the church alleged to have furnished the building was loyal to the Government of 
the United States throughout said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 13th day of December. 1904. 
G. W. Hott, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by George 
M. Anderson, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimants in their petition make the following allegations: 

That in the fall of 1861 the military forces of the United States, under command 
of Gen. B. F. Kelley, took possession of said church building and grounds, and the 
same was occupied continuously by different commands of the United States Army 
for a period of three and one-half years from said date for quarters and barracks; that 
by reason of such use and occupation repairs were necessary, and the reasonable rental 
value of said property during the time it was so occupied, including the repairs neces- 
sary to restore the building to the condition in which it was before said occupancy 
began, was the sum of 1935.32, for which no payment has been made. 

The coiut, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United 
States, by proper authority, took possession of and used for hospital purposes the 
.church building belonging to the Free Chiu-ch of Burlington, ]\Iineral County, State 
of West Virginia, and damaged the same. The reasonable rental value thereof, includ- 
ing repairs made necessary by such use and occupation, was the sum of eight hundred 
and ninety-five dollars (|895). 

Np payment appears to have been made therefor. 

By the Court. 

Filed December 19, 1904. 

A true copy. 

Test this 20th day of December, 1904. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



358 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

WASHINGTON. 
JOSEPH HINSON. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-68. Joseph Hinson v. The United States.] 
STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Committee 
on War Claims of the House 6f Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The case 
was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 11th day of March, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Pierce, in 
the State of Washington. 

2. That he, being the lieutenant-colonel of Thirty- third Regiment of Ohio Volunteer 
Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State of Ohio as 
colonel thereof on June 26, 1865; and t"hat from and after said date he assumed and per- 
formed all the duties of his said grade until July 19, 1865, when he was mustered out as 
lieutenant-colonel; said regiment was continuously below the minimum number pre- 
scribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, he was refused muster 
and recognition in the grade of colonel during said period. 

_ 3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances of a 
lieutenant-colonel although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of 
colonel. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other 
evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the coiu't makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. Joseph Hinson, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and 
resident in the county of Pierce, in the State of AVashington. 

2. On June 26, 1865, the said Joseph Hinson was lieutenant-colonel of Thirt^^-thml 
Regiment Ohio Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was mustered out of the 
service, to wit, on July 19, 1865, the same was and continued to be below the minimum 
number prescribed by General Order No. 182 of the War Department of June 20, 1863, 
carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863. (12 Stat* 
L., 734.) 

The colonel of said Thirty-third Regiment Ohio Volunteer Infantry being then and 
thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of colonel devolved upon this claim- 
ant, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all the duties of colonel of said 
Thirty-third Regiment Ohio Volunteer Infantry. 

The governor of the State of Ohio also issued to this claimant a commission as colonel 
Thirty-third Regiment Ohio Volunteer Infantry. 

3. On the said June 26, 1865, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to 
muster this claimant as colonel of said Thirty-third Regiment Ohio Volunteer Infan- 
try, solely because his command was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, 
although he continued to perform the duties of colonel until he was mustered out of 
the service as lieutenant-colonel, July 19, 1865. 

4. If the said Joseph Hinson should be deemed colonel of Thirty-third Regiment 
Ohio Volunteer Infantry and entitled to the pay of that grade, the difference between 
bis pay and allowances as a lieutenant-colonel which he has received and that of a 
colonel to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered for the period 
from June 26, 1865, to July 19, 1865, would amount to §115.41 (one hundred and fifteen 
dollars and forty-one cents), as reported by the Auditor for the A\'ar Department, 
including short payment and income tax on remuster. 

By THE Court. 
Filed March 11, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed bv the court. 

Test this 13th day of March, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIlSr CLAIMS. 359 

WISCONSIN. 

IRVING V. BLISS. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12640-3. Irving V. Bliss v. The United States.] 
STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted ,to the court by the Committee 
on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The case 
was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 1st day of April, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, / 
by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for thei 
defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and I'esident in the city of Milwaukee, in 
the State of Wisconsin. 

2. That he, being the first sergeant of Company E, Twenty-seventh Regiment of 
Wisconsin Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed and commissioned by the governor 
of the State of Wisconsin as second lieutenant thereof on December 6, 1864, and that 
from and after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until 
March 10, 1865, when he was mustered in as such; said regiment was continuously 
below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and 
no other, he was refused muster and recognition in the grade of second lieutenant dur- 
ing said period. 

3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and .allowances of a 
first sergeant, although he Avas in the continuous performance of the duties of second 
lieutenant. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other 
evidence and upon briefs and arguments of coimsel, the court makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. Irving V. Bliss, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and 
resident in the city of Milwaukee, in the State of Wisconsin. 

2. On December 6, 1864, the said Irving V. Bliss was first sergeant of Company E, 
Twenty-seventh Regiment Wisconsin Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until 
he was mustered into the service, to wit, on March 10, 1865, the same was and continued 
to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Order No. 182 of the War 
Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress 
approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 734). 

The second lieutenant of said Company E, Twenty-seventh Regiment Wisconsin 
Volunteer Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of 
second lieutenant devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and 
performed all the duties of second lieutenant of Company E, Twenty-seventh Regi- 
ment Wisconsin Volunteer Infantry. 

The governor of the State of Wisconsin also issued to this claimant a commission as 
second lieutenant, Company E, Twenty-seventh Regiment Wisconsin Volunteer 
Infantry. 

3. On the said December 6, 1864, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to 
muster this claimant as second lieutenant of said Company E, Twenty-seventh Regi- 
ment Wisconsin Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its mini- 
mum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of second 
lieutenant until he was mustered into the service as such March 10, 1865. 

4. During the period aforesaid, to wit, from December 6, 1864, to March 10, 1865, 
this claimant employed no servant not enlisted. 

5. During said period this claimant did draw rations from the Government. 

6. If the said Irving V. Bliss should be deemed second lieutenant of Company E, 
Twenty-seventh Regiment Wisconsin Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay of 
that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a first sergeant, which he 
has received, and that of a second lieutenant, to which he would have been entitled 
had he been mustered for the period from December 6, 1864, to March 9, 1865, would 
amount to 1334.22 (three hundred and thirty-four dollars and twenty-two cents) as 
reported by the Auditor for the War Department, including |50 bounty, act July 28, 
1866, and $3.67 income tax erroneously deducted. 

By the Court. 
Filed April 1, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 2d day of April, 1907. 

[seal.] . John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



360 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAUsT CLAIMS. 

HIRAM F. LYKE. 

[Court of Claims. Congreasional, No. 10733. Hiram F. Lyke v. The United States.] 
STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Committee , 
on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The case 
•was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 7th day of January, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Waukesha, 
in the 'f late of Wisconsin. 

2. That he, being the first sergeant of Company F, Twenty-eighth Regiment of 
Wisconsin Volunteer Infantiy, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor 
of the State of Wisconsin as second lieutenant thereof to rank from June 30, 1863, and 
fijst lieutenant August 11, 1863, and that from and after said dates he assumed and 
performed all the duties of his said grades until October 11, 1863, when he was mus- 
tered in as first lieutenant; said regiment was continuously below the minimum 
number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason and no other he was 
refused muster and recognition in the grade of second lieutenant during said period. 

3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances 
of a fiji'st sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties ol 
second lieutenant and first lieutenant from June 30 and August 11, 1863, respectively. 

Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other 
evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

1. Hiram F. Lyke, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and 
resident in the county of Waukesha, in the State of Wisconsin. 

2. On June 30, 1863, the said claimant was fii'st sergeant of Company F, Twenty- 
eighth Regiment Wisconsin Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until October 11, 
1863, the same was and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by 
General Orders, No. 182. of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect 
section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., 734). 

The second lieutenant of said Company F, Twenty-eighth Regiment Wisconsin 
Volunteer Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade the duties of 
second lieutenant devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and 
performed all the duties of second lieutenant of said Company F, Twenty-eighth 
Regiment Wisconsin Volunteer Infantry, until August 11, 1863, when he was promoted 
to be first lieutenant thereof and mustered as such October 11, 1863. 

The governor of the State of Wisconsin also issued to tliis claimant commissions as 
second and first lieutenants of Company F, Twenty-eighth Regiment Wisconsin Vol- 
unteer Infantry. 

3. On the said June 30, 1863, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to 
muster this claimant as second lieutenant of said Company F, Twenty-eighth Regiment 
Wisconsin Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its minimum 
strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of second lieutenant 
until he was mustered into the service, as aforesaid. 

4. During the period aforesaid, to wit, from June 30, 1863, to October 11, 1863, this 
claimant employed no servant not enlisted. 

5. During said period this claimant did draw rations from the Government. 

6. If the said Hiram F. Lyke should be deemed second lieutenant of Company F, 
Twenty-eighth Regiment Wisconsin Volunteer Infantry, from June 30, 1863, and first 
lieutenant fi'om August 11, 1863, and entitled to the pay of these gi-adcs, the difference 
between his pay and allowances as a first sergeant, which he has received, and that of a 
second lieutenant and first lieutenant, to which he would have been entitled had he 
been mustered for the period from June 30, 1863, and August 11, 1863, respectively, to 
October 10, 1863, would amount to $188.56, without any deduction for income tax, as 
reported by the Auditor for the War Department. 

7. Incorne tax, if to be deducted, would amount to $3.51, leaving a balance of one 
hundred and eighty-five dollars and five cents (1185.05). 

Filed January' 7,1907. By the Court. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 9th day of January, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims, 

LEJe-Oa O -c^ 



